Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. on 26 June, 2003

Sree Akilandeswari Mills Private ... vs The Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, ... on 28 January, 2005

13. The Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd (266 ITR 257), while considering the case of liability of gratuity taken over by the assessee from the transferor when the business was taken over as a going concern, held that the gratuity liability till the date of transfer taken over by the assessee would be capital in nature and it would form part of the sale consideration and it has to be added to the cost of acquisition of the assets transferred. The Calcutta High Court held as under:
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - N V Balasubramanian - Full Document

Acit, Cc-1(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Padam Mercantiles (P) Ltd., Kolkata on 7 March, 2018

6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since this issue is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 5149 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006, we decided to hear the ld DR and proceeded to dispose off this appeal. We find that the ld DR had rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra. The Supreme Court order is reproduced hereunder:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khaitan Consultants Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 July, 2016

2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal ) has erred in law as well as on facts in applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. ( 287 ITR 333) ignoring the fact that both the cases are totally different. In the case of Hooghly Mills the sale consideration was Rs.2 crores only and the vendee had to bear the statutory liability of gratuity of employees. However in this case as per agreement sale consideration itself included repayment of loan."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited,, ... on 13 September, 2017

Vs. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 -9- Axel Co. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 95 propounding real income's accrual theory. We however observe that the said case law does not apply to facts of the instant case wherein the assessee has not been able to prove that the impugned expenditure to be falling under Section 48 (i) & (ii) of the Act for the purpose of computing consequential capital gains. Mr. Soparkar then relies upon further case laws CIT vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 257 (Calcutta) quoting Kumudan Printers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 680 (Mad.) in upholding tribunal's decision allowing gratuity liability of the said assessee. We however notice that in taking over agreement therein of the undertaking specifically included gratuity liability as against facts of the instant case wherein the assessee appellant has failed to prove that its MOU dated 2.04.2009 is in tune with registered documents (supra). We therefore see no justification in interfering with well thought CIT(A)'s conclusion upholding Assessing Officer's action.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tax vs M/S. Khaitan Consultants Limited on 16 November, 2021

2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. After noting the facts, the CIT(A) recorded a finding that the assessee had received only a sum of Rs.10,40,09,705/- as sale consideration for sale of shares. The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hooghly Mills Company Limited (287 ITR 333). The revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal re-appreciated the facts, more particularly clause 2 of the agreement in its entirety and held that the purchasers of shares took over the liability of the assessee and acknowledged the purchasers as creditors in so far as the sum of Rs.4,97,25,928/- is concerned. Further, the Tribunal stated that there is nothing available on record to show that the said amount was received by the assessee as sale consideration towards the sale of shares and, therefore, the same cannot be attributed to consideration for sale of the shares.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1