PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

443 ITR 194Supreme Court of India2022#1196 most cited

What is PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

An assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in the name of a defunct transferor company is valid if the assessee failed to intimate the AO about the merger or amalgamation.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. · 443 ITR 194 · 19 SCC 1 · assessment validity · amalgamation · merger · transferor company · defunct company · intimation to AO · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 292B

Also reported as

19 SCC 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 147Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)transferor companytransferee companysection 39section 14(a)section 2(31)amalgamationsection 292bsection 153a(1)(b)construction pesection 292section 24(a)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2394/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT-24(1), M/s Dreamz Dwellers LLP Room No. 604, 6th floor, (Legal Representative of M/s Piramal Chamber, Parel, Vs. Megacorp Developers Pvt. Mumbai-400012. Ltd.) 702, Natraj, M.V. Road, Junction, Western Express Highway Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. PAN No. AAFCM 0366 B Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR Assessee by : Mr. Ajay Singh, AR Date of Hearing : 29/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2022 ORDER PER OM PR…

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 611/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Merged Entity: Rustomjee Construction Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Appellant 702, Natraj, M.V. Road W.E. Highway, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 PAN – AAACK2499Q v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–(2)4, Mumbai Assessee by :…

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Merged Entity: Rustomjee Construction Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Appellant 702, Natraj, M.V. Road W.E. Highway, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 PAN – AAACK2499Q v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–(2)4, Mumbai Assessee by :…

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Merged Entity: Rustomjee Construction Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Appellant 702, Natraj, M.V. Road W.E. Highway, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 PAN – AAACK2499Q v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–(2)4, Mumbai Assessee by :…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Merged Entity: Rustomjee Construction Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Appellant 702, Natraj, M.V. Road W.E. Highway, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 PAN – AAACK2499Q v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–(2)4, Mumbai Assessee by :…

Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (Bic India) (As Seccessor to Bic Cello Exports P.Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (As Successor To Bic Cello Pr.Cit(Central)-3 Exports P.Ltd) Room No-1991, 19Thfloor, G-1,701/702, Lotus Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Corporate Park, Jaicoach W Point, Mumbai-400 021 E Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc9698R Assessee By : Shri. Dhanesh Bafana & Ms. Hirali Desai. Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09-11-2022

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafana, & MsFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (As Successor to Bic Cello PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-3 Exports P.Ltd) Room No-1991, 19THFloor, G-1,701/702, Lotus Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Corporate Park, Jaicoach W Point, Mumbai-400 021 E Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCC9698R Assessee by : Shri. Dhanesh Bafana, & Ms. Hirali Desai. Revenue by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR. Date of hearing: 11.08.2022 Date of pronouncement: 09-11-2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This…

DCIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

…and State Bank of India (successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) in ITA No. 2875/Mum/2019. 8. The Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mahagun Realtor Private Limited [2022 SCC OnLine SC 407] wherein it is held that in the process of amalgamation, the business of the erstwhile entity is taken over by the amalgamated entity and thus the old entity is not destroyed. He submitted that in the instant case also facts are identical, thus ratio in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Private Limited (supra) is not applicable over fact…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

…and State Bank of India (successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) in ITA No. 2875/Mum/2019. 8. The Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mahagun Realtor Private Limited [2022 SCC OnLine SC 407] wherein it is held that in the process of amalgamation, the business of the erstwhile entity is taken over by the amalgamated entity and thus the old entity is not destroyed. He submitted that in the instant case also facts are identical, thus ratio in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Private Limited (supra) is not applicable over fact…

State Bank of India (Sucessor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 277/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

…NO. 27779 of 2017 dated 31.12.2016 (ii). ACIT v. VAhanvati Consultants (P.) Ltd., in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 52 (SC) (iii). Oasys Green Tech (P.) Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer [2020] 115 taxmann.com 153 (Madras) (iv). Pr.CIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd., [2022] 443 ITR 194 (v). Maxopp Investment Ltd., v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)] 24. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that on similar circumstances in which “State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur” merged with the “SBI”, the Coordinate Bench following the decision of the PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC) in…

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…80 ITR 272 (Kar.) (iii) eMudhra Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 550 (Kar.) 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. reported in (2022) 443 ITR 194 (SC) and the finding of the DRP. 9. In the rejoinder, the learned AR submitted that the case law relied on by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since sufficient intimation have been made to the A.O. about the merger of Biocon Research Limited with Biocon Biologics India Limited, during the course of assessment pr…

M/S Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income

Appeals are allowed

ITA/371/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.371 OF 2015 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL No.372 OF 2015 INCOME TAX APPEAL No.373 OF2015 In I.T.A.No.371/2015 BETWEEN: M/s. TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD, [ERSTWHILE TRISHUL DEVELOPERS], REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K.PRAKASH SHETTY, No.9, ALI ASKAR ROAD, OFF.CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR…

M/S Trishul Build Tech vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income

Appeals are allowed

ITA/373/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.371 OF 2015 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL No.372 OF 2015 INCOME TAX APPEAL No.373 OF2015 In I.T.A.No.371/2015 BETWEEN: M/s. TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD, [ERSTWHILE TRISHUL DEVELOPERS], REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K.PRAKASH SHETTY, No.9, ALI ASKAR ROAD, OFF.CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR…

M/S Trishul Build Tech Infrastructure vs. The Joint Commissioner of

Appeals are allowed

ITA/372/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.371 OF 2015 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL No.372 OF 2015 INCOME TAX APPEAL No.373 OF2015 In I.T.A.No.371/2015 BETWEEN: M/s. TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD, [ERSTWHILE TRISHUL DEVELOPERS], REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K.PRAKASH SHETTY, No.9, ALI ASKAR ROAD, OFF.CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR…

Namrata Kapale, Chindwara vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)Section 159(2)(b)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 41/JAB/2022 (Asst. Year: 2017-18) Namrata Kapale, vs. Principal CIT-1, L/R of Ram Rao Kapale, Jabalpur. Ward No.12, Purani Basti Loniya, Karbal, Chhindwara. [PAN : FFUPK 7400 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/08/2022 Date of pronouncement : 23/09/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal…

Saurabh Singhai L/H Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer-3 Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…pect of absence of jurisdiction, which is without doubt fundamental to the validity of the proceedings. Though this decision stands since turned, i.e., on the aspect of ceasure to exist of an amalgamating company (Pr. CIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. [2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC)), the same would continue to hold qua a valid assumption of jurisdiction. There is, thus, no divergence qua the basic postulate of law, but an absence of the jurisdictional fact, a condition precedent, for framing an assessment and, thus, an absence of a legal basis, which led the Apex Court to decide differently. The same would though have…