MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction and deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)", "144C(1)", "270A", "144C(2)", "92B", "92BA", "92C(1)", "50B

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

50B or section 48 or any other section, it has been provided that the `fair market value’ of the undertaking shall be treated as the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of its transfer under slump sale. 16.5 The Assessing Officer has discussed the report of RSM & Co. which valued PTB. Copy of such report

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

50B is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Grasim Industries Ltd. In relation to Ground No.5 of the Assessee’s appeal and Ground No.13 of the Department’s appeal: 63. The issue related re-compute the gain arising on transfer of Sponge Iron Unit and to allow deduction of liabilities towards representations and warranties

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)

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 gains' arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The term 'slump sale' has been defined

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

50B of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us on the aforementioned grounds. 6. Before us, the learned AR submitted that in the present case, the AO made reasonable enquiries on the issues in response to which the assessee submitted detailed explanation for the stand taken by the assessee along with Accountant’s report showing

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

transfer is not a „slump sale‟ and hence, not chargeable to tax under Section 50B of the Act. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Bijlee, wherein it was held that presence of a monetary consideration / price

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

50B of the Act 5.4.1 The appellant submitted that Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs. 1,30,41,920/- were not taken over by CGL as the same were old outstanding debts and legal proceedings were going on and hence, not transferred. The liabilities aggregating to Rs. 1,94,17,656/- were Nelco Ltd; A.Y. 2011-12; also not transferred

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

50B is deleted.\n\nThus, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal stands allowed.\n\nIn relation to Ground No.5 of the Assessee's appeal and Ground No.13 of the\nDepartment's appeal:\n\n63. The issue related re-compute the gain arising on transfer of Sponge Iron Unit\nand to allow deduction of liabilities towards representations and warranties

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

50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both the cases

THERMO FISHER SCIENFTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both the cases

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

50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both the cases

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 50B of the Act and also on the relevant provisions of The Companies Act and Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act to submit that the revaluation reserve ought to 26 ITA 1903/Mum/2015 M/s Strides Arcolab Limited be excluded while arriving at the price at which the transaction is to take place and accordingly the same is within

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

50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both the cases

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

price for each depreciable asset and accordingly no question of balancing charge would arise for consideration. But the surplus on sale of capital asset was held to taxable as capital gain. 5.9 It is not denied that subsequent to the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, provision of section 50B came into the statute. Thus, even If the contention

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

price for each depreciable asset and accordingly no question of balancing charge would arise for consideration. But the surplus on sale of capital asset was held to taxable as capital gain. 5.9 It is not denied that subsequent to the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, provision of section 50B came into the statute. Thus, even If the contention

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 ()

50B ought to have been invoked and since the undertaking has been transferred at book value, the book net worth would be the fair value of consideration and the cost of acquisition resulting in NIL income. 9. The assessment order dated 16.04.2021 is bad in law and without jurisdiction having passed under section which is no longer in existence

MORARJEE REALITIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS PENINSULA LAND LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

section 50B of the Act, being difference between sale consideration of `4,32,00,000/- and net worth of the textile division of `38,79,24,138/-. Notably, the net worth of the undertaking, as disclosed in Form 3CEA was `38,79,24,138/- while the sales consideration was `4,32,00,000/, resulting in a Long Term Capital Loss

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

transferred by way of a slump sale to the purchaser, M/s. Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) B.V. The Long Term Capital Gain on the above transaction under section u/s 50B of the Act was worked-out by the assessee at Rs. 9,01,94,288/-.The assessee-company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 24.09.2012declaring total

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

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

section 50B were applicable, there was no infirmity in the order of the view in treating the transaction is a slump sale. 5.2.Before us,the AR contended that no new facts were required to be investigated about the additional ground raised,that the FAA had to decide the issue whether the transfer,as per the BTA,was for money