ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

capital gain. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the conversion of private limited company into LLP in lieu of interest in the LLP given to the shareholders is case of "slump exchange" and therefore, not chargeable to tax. 8. Without prejudice to the above, section 50B

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital asset being transferred i.e. the undertaking cannot be determined. This position underwent a change pursuant to the insertion of section 50B of the Act. Section 50B of the Act, as it stood for the relevant assessment year under, is reproduced hereunder: (1) Any profits or gains

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain under section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain under section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

section 50B of the Act.\nSection 50B of the Act, as it stood for the relevant assessment year under, is\nreproduced hereunder:\n\n(1) Any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the\nprevious year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

50B or sub-section (3) of section 45 or sub-section (4) of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, if the previous owner or the transferor, as the case may be, of such shares has not acquired them by any mode referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) [other than the transactions referred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

50B or sub-section (3) of section 45 or sub-section (4) of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, if the previous owner or the transferor, as the case may be, of such shares has not acquired them by any mode referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) [other than the transactions referred

T vs. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Tvs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Acit -2(3)(1) B-106, 10Th Floor, B-Wing Mumbai Vs. Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400001

capital gains. Although the sale deed clearly emphasized that assessee owned a building worth Rs.30 lacs, assessee had represented the sale as mere sale of land. This transfer of business unit transfer falls under the provision of section 50B

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS L & T SHIPBUILDING LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on slump sale of port division in FY 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) is empowered under the Act to reduce the returned income of assessee by way of recomputation of deduction under section 50B

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

section 50B of the Act are applicable. The AO computed long-\nterm capital gains of Rs.92,61,77,470. The relevant

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

section 50B of the Act are applicable. The AO computed long-\nterm capital gains of Rs.92,61,77,470. The relevant

L & T TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

Section 50B of the Act and is a special provision for computation of capital gains in the case of a slump

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

capital gains tax as per the provisions of section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee

TAJ TV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

section 50B dealing with income on sale of a business unit/undertaking/division via slump sale is required to be computed. c) The capital gain

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. CIR. 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain in terms of Sec.50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 20 6 Appeals Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 20. After referring the contents of the agreement and sale consideration provided in Schedule III the ld. CIT(A) stated that at para no. 3 of the agreement

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain in terms of Sec.50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 20 6 Appeals Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 20. After referring the contents of the agreement and sale consideration provided in Schedule III the ld. CIT(A) stated that at para no. 3 of the agreement

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain in terms of Sec.50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 20 6 Appeals Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 20. After referring the contents of the agreement and sale consideration provided in Schedule III the ld. CIT(A) stated that at para no. 3 of the agreement

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain in terms of Sec.50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 20 6 Appeals Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 20. After referring the contents of the agreement and sale consideration provided in Schedule III the ld. CIT(A) stated that at para no. 3 of the agreement