“going concern”

Judicial DoctrinesSlump SaleSlump Sale477 judgments

The decision most relied on for going concern is Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT (345 ITR 421), cited in 97 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on going concern

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

65 Taxmann.com 288 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII

25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT

72 ITR 114 · 1969 · High Court

citing judgments

A business concern can still be considered to be carrying on its business even if there are long intervals of inactivity, provided it is kept alive, retains its registered office, and holds meetings. It is not necessary for a business to have work constantly to be considered in existence.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT

34 Taxmann.com 9 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill, even if it's considered an intangible asset representing future profits, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. SMIFS Securities Ltd.

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

19 SOT 612 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

While the case involves a reference to "fresh tangible material", "valuation of shares", "going concern", and "indexed cost of acquisition", the provided passages do not clearly articulate the specific holding of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)

110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

CIT v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.

291 ITR 362 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on standby machinery that is kept ready for use, even if not actually put to use due to reasons such as raw material paucity. This is permissible as long as the business is a going concern.

Judgments citing going concern

Aksh Optifibre Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Alwar

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

Central issue that was raised by the Ld. A.O related to eligibility of depreciation on carving out of a business division as a “Going Concern” vide agreement to sell dated 14-09-2009 effective and executed w.e.f 01- 04-2009. Ld. A.O. has halved the full depreciation claimed ... version that undertaking was carved out into a wholly owned subsidiary on 01-04-2009 as a 21 ITA No. 170/JPR/2024 Aksh Optifibre Limited “Going Concern” and the appellant is eligible for full year of deprecation which is rejected by Ld. A.O. The Hon'ble CIT(A) in its order

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Enterprises Private Limited had acquired two firms viz., M/s. Usha Kiron Television and M/s. Usha Kiron Movies belongs to Ramoji Rao HUF as a going concern and had acquired satellite rights of 3700 feature films in different languages, many of which, were either perpetual or for a long period ranging ... transferred to the 23 ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 appellant company of erstwhile M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited as a going concern. Once the entire business is transferred as a going concern concept, then, nothing is eft with the transferee firms to carry on the business

Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Enterprises Private Limited had acquired two firms viz., M/s. Usha Kiron Television and M/s. Usha Kiron Movies belongs to Ramoji Rao HUF as a going concern and had acquired satellite rights of 3700 feature films in different languages, many of which, were either perpetual or for a long period ranging ... transferred to the 23 ITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 appellant company of erstwhile M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited as a going concern. Once the entire business is transferred as a going concern concept, then, nothing is left with the transferee firms to carry on the business

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Enterprises Private Limited had acquired two firms viz., M/s. Usha Kiron Television and M/s. Usha Kiron Movies belongs to Ramoji Rao HUF as a going concern and had acquired satellite rights of 3700 feature films in different languages, many of which, were either perpetual or for a long period ranging ... satellite rights of feature films and the same has been transferred to the appellant company of erstwhile M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited as a going concern. Once the entire business is transferred as a going concern concept, then, nothing is left with the transferee firms to carry on the business

Delicatessen Engineering Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 835/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.835/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Delicatessen Vs. Dy. Cit. Engineering Services Circle- 8(1), Private Hyderabad Limited,Hyderabad Pan:Aagcd8678N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated,18/07/2024, In Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp-1 Bengaluru, Dated 26/02/2024 U/S 144C(5) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Relating To A.Y.2020-21. Page 1 Of 32

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

part of operating cost. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant had acquired global engineering services division as a going concern from M+W Hightech Projects by way of BTA in financial year 2019-20. This acquisition resulted in a goodwill of Rs.8,56,17,387/- which

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 92B

liabilities of ICIL on an after the appointed date and prior to the effective date have been transferred to Infosys Limited on a going concern basis. As ICIL was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infosys Limited, no shares have been allotted to the shareholders upon the scheme becoming effective

Digital Insight India Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5048/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 44ASection 50BSection 50B(3)

Business as conducted within India, together with all its properties, assets, investments, liabilities, rights, benefits, interest and obligations, as a going concern on an “as is where is basis" by way of a Slump Sale in accordance with Section 2(42C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the terms ... Business as conducted in India, together with all its properties, assets, investments, liabilities, rights, benefits, interests and obligations, as a going concern on an "as is where is basis" by way of a Slump Sale in accordance with Section 2(42C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, free and clear

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Digital Insight India Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5036/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 44ASection 50BSection 50B(3)

Navratan Jewellers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 127/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

failed to appreciate that the appellant partnership firm ceased to exist with effect from 01.04.2004, having been converted into a proprietorship concern as a going concern. The entire business, including all assets and liabilities, was taken over by the proprietorship concern, and all transactions, including those in the bank account

Satish Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

year under consideration. Moreover, as held in various judgments, the valuation method is one integrated scheme spread over a period on a going concern basis and as per our examination computation of tax effect in these cases is revenue neutral, i.e. the lower value of closing stock of this year

M/S. G K Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 557/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) G K Solutions Private Limited Nfac/Ito-5(1)(1) B-710, 711, Crystal Plaza New Link Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai City, 400020. Mumbai -400053. Pan: Aaccg2734Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Lodhe AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 250Section 254(1)

learned AO is not justified by not allowing entire business expenses of Rs. 3,86,789/- incurred to maintain corporate and going concern status of the appellant, despite submitting all the head-wise expenses. 2 G K Solutions Pvt. Ltd..A.Y. 2013-14 5. Your appellant craves to leave

Aon Consulting Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 739/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.739/िद"ी/2022(िन.व. 2017-18) M/S Aon Consulting P. Ltd., Aon Centre, 9Th To 11Th, Building No.2, Unitech Realty Projects Ltd., (Sez), Village Tikri, Sector 48, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahca-0739-J बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), Delhi Assessee By : Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Department By : S/Shri Rajesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed The Assessment Order Dated 22.02.2022 Passed U/S. 143 R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made In Respect Of Software Development Services Segment. The Assessee Has Also Assailed Some Additions On Corporate Issue, Viz. Disallowance Made U/S. 14A R.W.S. 8D & Additions Based On Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 14A

Spatiality Services P Ltd. (ASSPL) with the assessee w.e.f. 01.10.2016. The entire business of ASIPL and ASSPL has been transferred to the assessee on going concern basis. Further, there was demerger of division of the assessee to Aon HR Services India P. Ltd. the assessee has claimed depreciation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

claims, title, interest and authorities including accretions and appurtenances comprised in the undertaking of SCL stood transferred to and vested in UTCL, as a going concern. iv. The abovementioned rights, properties, estates etc. of SCL included Rail undertakings and power plants for which SCL had been claiming tax holiday

Plr Textiles Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

incorporation on change of its name at page 28 of the Book No.1.  KICL transferred the entire textile undertaking (including impugned land) a going concern as a slump sale (sec 50B) for a consideration of Rs.9.70 cores. The sale consideration was settled by taking over the liabilities of the undertaking

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

taken the specific assets and liabilities andnot allotted any shares back to the assessee, also the assets are not transferred with the concept of going concern. Their limited purpose was to liquidate the debts only. Therefore, as per the commercial transactions, the assets and liabilities belong to the assessee

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6301/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6300/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1148/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

eligible to prevent the Resolution Plan from becoming operative and shall be liable and obligated to continue to facilitate the corporate Debtor as a going concern ……… 11.7 Extinguishment of all the outstanding liabilities of the Corporate Debtor existing on the Completion Date with respect to operational creditors, including the government ... discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of l&B Code is, providing for revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern. I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 1, there are various important duties and functions entrusted

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1147/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31