{"id":64103,"date":"2026-08-28T16:12:05","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T10:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-spectra-shares-and-scrips-ltd-2026-308-taxman-141-telanganahc-3\/"},"modified":"2026-08-28T16:12:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T10:42:05","slug":"cit-v-spectra-shares-and-scrips-ltd-2026-308-taxman-141-telanganahc-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-spectra-shares-and-scrips-ltd-2026-308-taxman-141-telanganahc-3\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT v. Spectra Shares and Scrips Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 141 (Telangana)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee-company was engaged in bottling and marketing beverages under the Coca-Cola brand-It agreed to transfer its entire bottling and marketing business as a going concern for a total consideration of about Rs. 56.23 crores. Sale encompassed all assets, marketing network and goodwill, and included non-compete obligations. Assessee asserted that no individual values were assigned to specific assets as transfer was on a slump basis Tribunal held that since assessee sold its business as a going concern on a lump-sum basis without any individual values to various assets, the transaction in question fell within the definition of a slump sale as set out in section 2(42C). Tribunal held that since the entire business, together with all assets and liabilities, was sold as a going concern on a lump-sum basis, the provisions of section 50B and section 41(2) would not be applicable. Court held that revenue could not artificially fragment a transaction to tax portions thereof under different heads.\u00a0 (AY. 1998-99)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 50B: Capital gains-Slump sale-Coca-Cola brand-Transfer of its entire bottling and marketing business as a going concern-Lump-sum basis-Revenue could not artificially fragment the transaction to tax portions thereof under different heads-Order of the Tribunal affirmed.[S.2(42C, 41(2), 260A]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gFV","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64103"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64103\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64104,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64103\/revisions\/64104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}