Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III Versus PARLE INTERNATIONAL LTD

2016 (8) TMI 658 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - Valuation of Goodwill - ITAT deleted penalty levy - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that all transactions were supported by duly executed legal Agreements, having been acted by both the parties. Under the circumstances, the Revenue had no right or legal justification to doubt its genuineness, particularly when, there was no material on record to support the stand of Revenue. - In the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (2015 (10) TMI 1283 - SUPREME COURT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

09 - Dated:- 8-8-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. MONAAL J. DAVAWALA AND MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATES ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. In all these Tax Appeals, the assessee is the same and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. Tax Appeal Nos.1905/2008 and 1906/2008 have been filed against the common order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eement and ₹ 4,70,25,000/- being 30% of the value of ₹ 15,67,50,000/- ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts available on record so as to delete the addition sustained by the CIT(A), being addition on account of goodwill of ₹ 47,02,500/- which was shown in the agreement and ₹ 4,70,25,000/- being 30% of the value of ₹ 15,67,50,000? Tax Appeal No. 1906 of 2008 Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in not confirmin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, when the quantum additions made were confirmed ? 4. For the purpose of this judgment, Tax Appeal No.1905/2008 is taken as the lead matter. 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee herein is a closely held company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, named, Parle (Exports) Ldt. It forms part and parcel of Parle Group of companies. During the year relevant to A.Y. 1994-95, the assessee sold its business relating to manufacturing of concentrates for softdrinks, processin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owhow. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was finalized on 31.03.1997 determining total income at ₹ 12,83,17,670/- as against the returned income of ₹ 3,11,66,030/- . 6. Against the order of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 25.07.1997, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of assessee in part. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the Department preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 04.02.2005, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. 9. Mr. Nitin Mehta, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Section 55(2), capital gains on the transfer of Goodwill becomes chargeable to tax. The assessee had not given the basis of the valuation of Goodwill though the assessee was specifically asked for by the A.O. The A.O., therefore, was of the opinion that value of Goodwill shown by the assessee was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Estate Duty, Kanpur, [1981] 132 ITR 421. (b) McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, [1985] 154 ITR 148. (c) Continental Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, [1992] 195 ITR 81. 10. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(A) seriously erred in modifying the effect of the three Agreements, which were, actually, entered into between two unaccounted parties at arms length and the payments which were received in foreign exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hem with the result that any such alleged transfer / surrender will be inoperative in law. 10.2 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Soparkar placed reliance upon the following decisions: (a) Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India and another, [2012] 341 ITR 01 (SC). (b) Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Commissioner of Incometax, Mysore, [2015] 378 ITR 640 (SC). 11. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. It is an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version