How many judgments cite Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO (223 ITR 809), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 14A, Section 154, Section 250, Section 263.

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

223 ITR 809Supreme Court of India1997#4002 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 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 144 Section 14A Section 154 Section 250 Section 263 Section 281(1)(ii)Section 59

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

transferor company transferee company amalgamation date of transfer advance tax section 154 section 263 section 26 transfer company india section 250

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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Indus Fila Ltd

In the result, the order passed by the Income Tax

ITA/431/2012HC Karnataka18 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 72Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.431 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), C.R. BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. INDUS FILA LTD., NO.107, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB II STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560022. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7117/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 6(2)(1) 21, Evergreen Industrial Estate R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan Shakti Mill Lane, Opp. Dr. E. Moses Road Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcc4014A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ms. Niyanta Mehta Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 72A

…the appellant to issue the share in financial year 2008-09 ie in the A.Y. 2009-10. So, it can not be held as a non compliance on the part of the appellant. Further in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Marshall Sons & Co (India) Ltd V/s ITO 223 ITR 809 where in it is held that scheme of amalgamation specifying date of transfer, court not modifying date of transfer- amalgamation takes effect on date of transfer specified in scheme and not on date of courts order. From the date, income of subsidiary company belongs to holding company- during the period of effective date as provided in the scheme…

Alstom India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6960/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri G. Manjnatha

For Appellant: Shri Mrunal Parekh a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…pon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 23. The learned Authorised Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he relied upon the following decisions as well. i) Marshall Sons & Co. v/s ITO, [2996] 223 ITR 809 (SC); and ii) ACIT v/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.7093/Mum./ 2004. 24. Further, learned Authorised Representative submitted that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006–07, in ITA no.8670/Mum./2010, dated 23rd July 2013, the 13 G.E. Power India Ltd. Tribunal has restored the issue to the Assessi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vama Sundari Investment (Delhi) (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Section 292B

…ned CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order passed by AO on 20.03.2014 by making disallowing of Rs.3,54,70,000/-. 2. That the Ld.CIT{A} has erred in not appreciating that according to observations in para in case of Marshall Sons & Co.(India) P Ltd. 223 ITR 809(SC), assessment can be made in respect of amalgamating companies and that if it is made in the name of an amalgamating company it should be set aside following the principle laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Mehta Vs.CIT (1977) 106 ITR 855 (Cal) and Roshan Lal, (1982) 134 ITR 145(Del).” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the cont…

Ipsos Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1517/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar & JasminFor Respondent: Jayant Kumar Ld. CIT DR &

Section 234ASection 40

…a Markets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 772/M/2013 Mumbai Tribunal] (x) Siemens Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 6313/M/2012 Mumbai Tribunal] (xi) Instant Holdings Ltd s ACIT [4593/M/11 & 4748/M/11 Mumbai Tribunal] (xi) Marshall Sons & Co Vs ITO [223 ITR 809 Supreme Court] 5.3 Per contra, Ld. DR, on merits, placed reliance on the stand of lower authorities and submitted that the complete onus to prove the factum of receipt of actual services rested on assessee and the failure to do so has rightly resulted into impugned additions. 5.4 On legal ground, Ld. DR submitted that the assessee never submitte…

Ipsos Research P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 1177/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar & JasminFor Respondent: Jayant Kumar Ld. CIT DR &

Section 234ASection 40

Niit Online Learning Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1)

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2001-02 M/S Niit Online Learning Ltd., Vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, B-234, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle 13(1), Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aabcn1113B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…behalf of the assessee although there are numerous judicial precedents wherein it has been held that even pre-incorporation expenditure is allowable as a deduction. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. vs. CIT reported in CIT 223 ITR 809 (SC) that a company can decide to hive off business subsequently from a retrospective date. There are also ITA 647/Del/2005 Assessment Year 2001-02 numerous judgments on the proposition that expenditure incurred between the set up of business and earning of revenue are allowable. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also held so in CIT vs. Samsun…

M/S. Aztecsoft (Now Merged With Mindtree Ltd), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1434/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chytanya K. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 144CSection 92C

…. Consequently the additions based on such directions requires to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities below erred in making an assessment on non-existent company ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. - 223 ITR 809 and Saraswathi Industrial Limited vs. CIT - 186 ITR 278 and various Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. The Learned Authorities below failed to appreciate that consequent to approval of the scheme of merger/amalgamation the company ceases to exists in the eye of law from the date the merger/amalgamation is made effective, in this ca…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 784/JPR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 18Section 32(1)Section 394Section 40aSection 72A

…assessee company in directing to pass protective assessment order in case of assessee company presuming that no amalgamation has taken place following the scheme devised by Hon'ble Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (223 ITR 809) ignoring the fact that facts of that case are different from the present case and approval of BIFR is not received in the present case. (ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,14,78,795/- made by AO u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of TDS on payment made to foreign parties holding that payment of commission to these parties was in lieu of services rend…