Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO

223 ITR 809Supreme Court of India1997#4055 most cited

What is Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

In cases of amalgamation, the computation of income should be done with reference to periods before and after the appointed day, not the date of court sanction. Amalgamating companies cease to exist in law upon amalgamation.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO · amalgamation · appointed day · date of sanction · transferor company · transferee company · 223 ITR 809 · SC · non-existent entity · computation of income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 281(1)(ii)Section 59

Issues it is cited on

transferor companytransferee companyamalgamationdate of transferadvance taxsection 154section 263section 26transfercompanyindiasection 250

Judgments citing Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO

VARAM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Muthuabhirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…amalgamation the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of the law. Similarly, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of micron steels private limited 372 ITR 386 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of martial sons 223 ITR 809 (SC). 8. It has been held in the following decisions that, if a statutory notice is issued in the name of a non-existent entity, the entire assessment would be a nullity in the eyes of law: - PCIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) - CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 159/232 Taxman 279/[2016]…

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

…e\ntaxed in the hands of the assessee and therefore, the corresponding TDS\ncredit would also be claimed by it. In this connection, reliance is placed\non the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall\nSons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO [1997] 223 ITR 809 (SC).Accordingly,\nsince the income earned by ABMML of Rs.18,64,57,549/- from April 1,\n2016 till the date of approval of the scheme by the Court has been\noffered to tax by the assessee, the corresponding TDS credit of Rs.\n1,16,80,993/- should be allowed in its hands. In light of the above, the\nassessee requested to adjudicate the issue or, if…

M/S. ELITE REALCON PVT. LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO SOLID INFORMATION PVT. LTD.) ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-2(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.681/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Elite Realcon Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Kolkata (Successor To Solid Infracon Private Limited) 16 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacce 3338 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C. Roy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.03.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1041881225(1) For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri C. Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 404 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed The Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Reasons Given In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Are Found To Be Plausible & The Same Are Accepted & The Delay Of 404 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Company Namely Solid Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Had Merged With Elite Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Vide

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

…itio. The appellant humbly requests that the ratio of the said judgement may be followed in the present case. The appellant would also like to rely on the following judgments: a) The decision of Supreme Court in Marshall Sons and Co (India) Ltd vs ITO, (1997) 223 ITR 809 has clearly held that in case of amalgamation, the computation of income as between the amalgamating and amalgamated companies should be with reference to the periods before and after the appointed day and not on the date on which the scheme itself is sanctioned by the Court as was wrongly understood by the Madras High Court. Hence there is no re…

ASIANET STAR COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 934/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Porus F Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…means that the merger or amalgamation is with effect from the appointed date i.e., 01.10.2017. The ld.counsel for the assessee for this relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd., vs. ITO reported in [1997] 223 ITR 809. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR stated that the effective date is to be taken and the AO and CIT(A) has rightly taken the effective date and this has been clarified in the Circular issued by the ITA Nos.934 & 935/Chny/2022 Ministry of Corporate Affairs in F.No.7/12/2019/CL-I dated 21st August, 2019, wherein the decision of Marshall Sons…

PUSHPANJALI MEDI INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-2(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 859/KOL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "याियक सद"य) Ita Nos.858 & 859/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Pushpanjali Medi India Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 2(1), Kolkata. 5Th Floor, Gandhi House, Vs. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aafcp0049J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 232Section 250

…appointed dated is 01.04.2020. In our opinion, the said claim of the assessee is genuine as per the provisions of the Act and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place and it is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in…

M/S. PUSHPANJALI MEDI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-2(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 858/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "याियक सद"य) Ita Nos.858 & 859/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Pushpanjali Medi India Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 2(1), Kolkata. 5Th Floor, Gandhi House, Vs. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aafcp0049J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 232Section 250

…appointed dated is 01.04.2020. In our opinion, the said claim of the assessee is genuine as per the provisions of the Act and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place and it is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in…

SOLVENT REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 994/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

…ity/company. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decisions: i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) ii) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd.v. Income-tax Officer [1997] 223 ITR 809 (SC) iii) Spice Enfotainment vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in ITA 475/2011 dated 2.8.2011(Del) The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the assessment framed may kindly be quashed. 8. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments presented by the ld AR by submitting that the assessee has informed vide letter dated 28.11.2016 and it a…

ITO, WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SOLVENT REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 879/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

…ity/company. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decisions: i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) ii) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd.v. Income-tax Officer [1997] 223 ITR 809 (SC) iii) Spice Enfotainment vs. Commissioner of Service Tax in ITA 475/2011 dated 2.8.2011(Del) The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the assessment framed may kindly be quashed. 8. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments presented by the ld AR by submitting that the assessee has informed vide letter dated 28.11.2016 and it a…

BATA PROPERTIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 876/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)

…e appointed dated is 01.10.2020. In our opinion the said claim of the assessee is genuine as per the provisions of the Act and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place and it is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in…

POPULAR COMPLEX ADVISORY PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOL. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 595/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 233Section 234BSection 234C

…e appointed dated is 01.10.2020. In our opinion the said claim of the assessee is genuine as per the provisions of the Act and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place and it is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in…

PPG COATING INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2168/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ppg Coatings India Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-13(1)(1) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. (Now Merged With Ppg Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd.) The Centrium Phoenix Market City, Lbs, Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai- 400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4378K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 25.01.2017 Pursuant To Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)-02, Mumbai Passed 27.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Senior Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Which According To Him Is A Legal Issue & Which Need To Be Adjudicated First, Since If The Legal Issue Is Upheld Then, It Goes To The Root Of The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Have Passed The Final Assessment Order. The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Reads As Under;-

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd, Vs. CST, 12 ITR 134 (SC) (i) PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, 416 ITR 613 (Delhi) (ii) PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) and (iii) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 223 ITR 809 (SC). 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 416 ITR 613 (SC) after taking note of its own earlier decision in the case of CIT Vs. Infotainment Ltd. 12 ITR-OL 134 (SC) and Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT 186 ITR 278 (SC) on this issue held as under: - “33. In the present case, despite the fac…

CONVERGYS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14(3)Section 144Section 43BSection 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & SA No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3rd, 4th, 5th 1st, & Tower-B, New Delhi 2nd 5th Ground, & Floors, SP Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCC5056G Assessee by : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Da…

M/S. CENTUM ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R
Section 10BSection 147Section 40

…gh Court dated 16.7.2010. He submitted that it is now well settled that assessment order cannot be passed in the name of amalgamating/transferor- company. The Ld.AR has relied on the following decisions: a) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 (SC) ITA No.946 /Bang/2019 M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 8 b) CIT & Another Vs. Intel Technology India (P) Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 272 (Kar) c) Principal CIT Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 21 (Del) d) Emerald Company Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 46 ITR (Trib) 619 2.5 The Ld.AR submitted that i…

THE INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1809/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathas.No. Ita No Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1. 80/Mds/2008 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 498/Chd/2007 2003-04 2. Deputy Commissioner M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd Of Income Tax, B-71, Phase Vii, I.A Circle-5(1),Chandigarh Mohali. Pan: Aaace 3979K 3-4 728/Chny/2008 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust & & Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. 1377/Chny/2008 2005-06 Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 1809/Chny/2014 2009-10 5 The Investment Trust Assistant Commissioner Of India Ltd. Of Income Tax, Company 7, B Block, 1St Floor, Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 Alsa Samar 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600 102. Pan:Aabcr 6577K अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel : प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate S/Shri.Sudhir Seghal & Vishal Kalra,Advocates सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & One Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Chennai Dated 29.10.2007, 31.01.2008, 20.03.2008 & 28.03.2014 & Learned Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 28.02.2007 & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009- 10. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing

…were allotted only in February 2003 when the slump sale had allegedly taken place on 1.9.2002. 2.7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment as the Supreme Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd V. Income Tax Officer 223 ITR 809 that it would be open to the tax authorities to question the amalgamation if the purpose is evasion of tax. The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Co. Ltd v.CTO 154 ITR 148 and the decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Economic times dated 14.10.2006 wherein the High Court ha…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. THE INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1377/CHNY/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathas.No. Ita No Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1. 80/Mds/2008 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 498/Chd/2007 2003-04 2. Deputy Commissioner M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd Of Income Tax, B-71, Phase Vii, I.A Circle-5(1),Chandigarh Mohali. Pan: Aaace 3979K 3-4 728/Chny/2008 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust & & Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. 1377/Chny/2008 2005-06 Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 1809/Chny/2014 2009-10 5 The Investment Trust Assistant Commissioner Of India Ltd. Of Income Tax, Company 7, B Block, 1St Floor, Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 Alsa Samar 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600 102. Pan:Aabcr 6577K अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel : प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate S/Shri.Sudhir Seghal & Vishal Kalra,Advocates सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & One Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Chennai Dated 29.10.2007, 31.01.2008, 20.03.2008 & 28.03.2014 & Learned Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 28.02.2007 & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009- 10. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing

…were allotted only in February 2003 when the slump sale had allegedly taken place on 1.9.2002. 2.7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment as the Supreme Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd V. Income Tax Officer 223 ITR 809 that it would be open to the tax authorities to question the amalgamation if the purpose is evasion of tax. The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Co. Ltd v.CTO 154 ITR 148 and the decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Economic times dated 14.10.2006 wherein the High Court ha…

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S. HFCL INFOTEL LTD., MOHALI

ITA 498/CHANDI/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathas.No. Ita No Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1. 80/Mds/2008 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 498/Chd/2007 2003-04 2. Deputy Commissioner M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd Of Income Tax, B-71, Phase Vii, I.A Circle-5(1),Chandigarh Mohali. Pan: Aaace 3979K 3-4 728/Chny/2008 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust & & Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. 1377/Chny/2008 2005-06 Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 1809/Chny/2014 2009-10 5 The Investment Trust Assistant Commissioner Of India Ltd. Of Income Tax, Company 7, B Block, 1St Floor, Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 Alsa Samar 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600 102. Pan:Aabcr 6577K अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel : प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate S/Shri.Sudhir Seghal & Vishal Kalra,Advocates सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & One Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Chennai Dated 29.10.2007, 31.01.2008, 20.03.2008 & 28.03.2014 & Learned Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 28.02.2007 & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009- 10. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing

…were allotted only in February 2003 when the slump sale had allegedly taken place on 1.9.2002. 2.7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment as the Supreme Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd V. Income Tax Officer 223 ITR 809 that it would be open to the tax authorities to question the amalgamation if the purpose is evasion of tax. The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Co. Ltd v.CTO 154 ITR 148 and the decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Economic times dated 14.10.2006 wherein the High Court ha…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. THE INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 80/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathas.No. Ita No Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1. 80/Mds/2008 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 498/Chd/2007 2003-04 2. Deputy Commissioner M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd Of Income Tax, B-71, Phase Vii, I.A Circle-5(1),Chandigarh Mohali. Pan: Aaace 3979K 3-4 728/Chny/2008 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust & & Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. 1377/Chny/2008 2005-06 Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 1809/Chny/2014 2009-10 5 The Investment Trust Assistant Commissioner Of India Ltd. Of Income Tax, Company 7, B Block, 1St Floor, Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 Alsa Samar 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600 102. Pan:Aabcr 6577K अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel : प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate S/Shri.Sudhir Seghal & Vishal Kalra,Advocates सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & One Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Chennai Dated 29.10.2007, 31.01.2008, 20.03.2008 & 28.03.2014 & Learned Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 28.02.2007 & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009- 10. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing

…were allotted only in February 2003 when the slump sale had allegedly taken place on 1.9.2002. 2.7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment as the Supreme Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd V. Income Tax Officer 223 ITR 809 that it would be open to the tax authorities to question the amalgamation if the purpose is evasion of tax. The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Co. Ltd v.CTO 154 ITR 148 and the decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Economic times dated 14.10.2006 wherein the High Court ha…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. THE INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA, CHENNAI

ITA 728/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathas.No. Ita No Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1. 80/Mds/2008 2003-04 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 498/Chd/2007 2003-04 2. Deputy Commissioner M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd Of Income Tax, B-71, Phase Vii, I.A Circle-5(1),Chandigarh Mohali. Pan: Aaace 3979K 3-4 728/Chny/2008 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner The Investment Trust & & Of Income Tax, Company Of India Ltd. 1377/Chny/2008 2005-06 Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 1,Krishnamma Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Pan:Aabcr 6577K 1809/Chny/2014 2009-10 5 The Investment Trust Assistant Commissioner Of India Ltd. Of Income Tax, Company 7, B Block, 1St Floor, Circle-Iii(2),Chennai-34 Alsa Samar 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600 102. Pan:Aabcr 6577K अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel : प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate S/Shri.Sudhir Seghal & Vishal Kalra,Advocates सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue & One Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Chennai Dated 29.10.2007, 31.01.2008, 20.03.2008 & 28.03.2014 & Learned Cit(A), Chandigarh Dated 28.02.2007 & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009- 10. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing

…were allotted only in February 2003 when the slump sale had allegedly taken place on 1.9.2002. 2.7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment as the Supreme Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd V. Income Tax Officer 223 ITR 809 that it would be open to the tax authorities to question the amalgamation if the purpose is evasion of tax. The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell Co. Ltd v.CTO 154 ITR 148 and the decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Economic times dated 14.10.2006 wherein the High Court ha…

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…court scheme. The scheme once sanctioned by the. Court has statutory legal binding. Reliance in this regard, may be placed on the jurisdictional High Court ruling of Sadanand Varde v State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609) and Apex court ruling of Marshall &Sons (223 ITR 809). 8. Investments by way of Non-Cumulative Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) in ISL and its subsequent conversion into equity shares. 8.1 Vide, para 14 to 16 of the above captioned notice your Honour has alleged that excess shares of ISL were allotted to the FIIs. It has also been alleged that the allotment was made over and abov…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…s concerned) which the ld.CIT(A) has not answered is concerned, the same, in our opinion, is devoid of any merit and contrary to settled position of law and even facts on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshal Sons & Co.(India) Ltd. vs. ITO, 223 ITR 809, has held that the effective date for amalgamation would be date of investment under the scheme. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court from para 14 onwards read as under:- “Every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place. The scheme concerned herein…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2