← All Phrases

“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
97
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
42
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
31
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
31
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
19
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
11
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
10
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
10
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

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3177/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee failed to furnish submissions / documentary evidences in support of its case. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s undertaking was sold as a going concern and issue in question on merits is with regard to computation of capital gains on slump sales. It was stated that the assessee

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3176/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee failed to furnish submissions / documentary evidences in support of its case. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s undertaking was sold as a going concern and issue in question on merits is with regard to computation of capital gains on slump sales. It was stated that the assessee

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 32

consideration. When once we accept the BTA, it goes without saying that the assessee acquired the IT services division of Allegis India on a going concern basis. Submission made on behalf of the assessee that in the hands of the seller, depreciation in respect of such assets was allowed