CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

section 50B which runs as under:- “50B. Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale.--(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

50B", "Section 48", "Section 32(1)(iia)", "Section 147", "Section 148" ], "issues": "1. Whether transfer expenses are deductible while computing capital gains

NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

Section 50B of the Act, which lays down the method prescribed to compute the capital gains states as under- "Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale. 50B. (1

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital gains tax can be levied on such transfer under Section 50B of the Act; Ground no. 6 - Amortization of telecom license fees under Section 35ABB(2) of the Act 17. erred in disallowing the amortization of telecom license fees of Rs 9,47,36,842 claimed by the Appellant under Section 35ABB(2) of the Act; Ground

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 ()

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,58,72,150/- made by learned AO applying section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to conversion of a private limited company into a limited liability partnership

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 section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

50B clearly states that any profit or gain arising from slum sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to tax as Capital Gain arising out from the transfer of Long Term Capital Asset and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which transfer took place. The business in which Capital Gain on slum sale

M/S. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE- 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2012-13

1. (a) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer computing long term capital gain on demerger of Ankleshwar unit at Rs. 41,16,73,633/- as against Rs. 9,01,94,2077- declared by the assessee company. (b) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gain tax u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature of amalgamation. Before us, the learned the acquisitions are in the nature

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gain tax u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature of amalgamation. Before us, the learned the acquisitions are in the nature

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gain tax u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature of amalgamation. Before us, the learned the acquisitions are in the nature

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gain tax u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer u/s 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature of amalgamation. Before us, the learned the acquisitions are in the nature

DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

1), Mumbai (“The AO”) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ii) The computation by the AO of the Capital Gains computed under Section 50B

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain under section 50B of the Income —tax Act, as under: 7 Particulars Rs. Total consideration received for Business Transfer 1

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain under section 50B of the Income —tax Act, as under: 7 Particulars Rs. Total consideration received for Business Transfer 1

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

capital gain, that it had voluntarily paid tax on the same when the return was filed u/s.139(1),that the above admitted fact remained so even when the return was filed in response to notice u/s.148, that subsequent to the reassessment proceedings the dispute or the grievance of the assessee was confined to the computation as per section 50B

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

1 of Section 50B of the Act. The provisions of section 50B of the Act, any profits and gains arising from slump sale effected in the previous year, shall be chargeable to income tax as 'capital

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

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

capital gains are to be computed as\nper the provisions of section 50B of the Act. The lower authorities also rejected\nthe contention of the assessee regarding the item-wise sale of assets.\n43.\nBefore proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the provisions of the\nAct which are relevant for deciding this issue. Section