section 28(va) — 50 judgments | BharatTax

RASAR BIOGENETICS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1266/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Us:

claims of the assessee firm, and thus, after treating the amount of Rs.4.15 crores (supra) as a revenue receipt under the provisions of section 28(va) of the Act, assessed its income vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28/12/2018 at the same amount. 7. Aggrieved

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

that the transfer of shares to NNCL pursuant to a SPA is a transfer of business and the provisions of section 28(va) were applicable to the aforesaid transfer of shares. 1.5. the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... shown profit from transfer of said share and offered it as long-term capital gain. The assessee further stated that provisions of section 28(va) are applicable only to the person, who are engaged in the business and received any consideration towards non complete fees. The assessee was merely shareholder

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

PANKAJ INDER WADHWA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1733/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 28

from Nimblepace Packaging Private Limited and Others (collectively referred to as "BK parties") as taxable under section 28(ii)(e) and section 28(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act']. Vs. Income Tax Officer 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the amount

KARTHICK CHILAKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 947/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 365/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Sunjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 68

compared to the firm and thus there was no revenue loss to the Department on account of this transaction. Non-complete consideration under Section 28(VA) of the Act is considered as income and, therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the same as expenditure as the source of the profit

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3052/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3052/Del/2007 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Modi Entertainment Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 49, Community Centre, New Friends Ward-5(2), Colony, New Delhi- New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm8283G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi Dated 24.03.2007 In Case No. 143/06-07, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 73

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 973/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Rony Anthony, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

material on record. We observe that the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2020-2021, which means after the insertion of sub- section 28(va), which sub-section is applicable with effect from 1st April, 2003. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the provisions of section 28(va ... case of Sharp Business Systems 140 TTJ 0607(Del), which is affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court , while interpreting the provisions of section 28(va) of the Act, in Para(15)has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the provisions of section 28(va) inserted in the statute

SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

compared to the firm and thus there was no revenue loss to the Department on account of this transaction. Non-complete consideration under Section 28(VA) of the Act is considered as income and, therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the same as expenditure as the source of the profit