Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra

247 ITR 609High Court2001#4483 most cited

What is Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra authority for?

A scheme of amalgamation, once sanctioned by a court, has statutory operation and is distinct from a mere agreement, being final and binding on all parties, including statutory authorities.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sadanand Varde · State of Maharashtra · 247 ITR 609 · scheme of amalgamation · statutory operation · court sanction · binding on statutory authorities · not a mere agreement

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 35ADSection 35AD(7B)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 35AD(7A)Section 37(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)section 35adsection 72acommercial substancetransferee companygoodwill arising on amalgamationresulting companyscheme of arrangementtransferor companysection 62nav methodslump sale

Judgments citing Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra

Jct Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

…uiesce in such alteration. (underlining provided by us) 4.5.2. We find that the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde and Others vs State of Maharashtra reported in 247 ITR 609 (Bom) wherein it was held that : “Once a scheme becomes sanctioned by the court, it ceases to operate as a mere agreement between the parties and becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and has statutory operation by virtue of the provisions of section 391 of the Companies Act.” The said judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High…

Carestream Health Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…orted in 236 ITR 327 (SC) (iii) CIT vs Mrs Grace Collis reported in 248 ITR 323 (SC) f) The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand S Varde and Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in 247 ITR 609 (Bom) wherein the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court ruled that the petitioners in the name of Public Interest Litigation, cannot challenge the scheme sanctioned by the Hon‟ble High Court and validly carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. 6 M/s.Carestream Health INC 6. The ld DRP disposed off the objections of the assessee b…

Nxp Semiconductors India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ree Company. Therefore, there is no dispute about the quantum as well as the nature of the goodwill. Further, Ld Counsel also relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand S. Varde & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom) and demonstrated that it is a statutory now that the AO should rely on the book values only and should not consider the market values of the assets in question. In this regard, Ld Counsel read out the following from page 23 of the said judgment. “………The court has discretion and power to reject a scheme even if all the shareholders and credi…

Electrocast Sales India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2145/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2145/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electrocast Sales India Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5671 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72ASection 79

…iesce in such alteration. (underlining provided by us) 4.5.2. We find that the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde and Others vs State of Maharashtra reported in 247 ITR 609 (Bom) wherein it was held that : “Once a scheme becomes sanctioned by the court, it ceases to operate as a mere agreement between the parties and becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and has statutory operation by virtue of the provisions of section 391 of the Companies Act.” The said judgement of Hon’ble Bombay Hig…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…of slump sale i.e., „sale‟ is missing. Transfer of property consequent to Scheme of arrangement approved by High Curt cannot be considered as sale. 29. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision in case of Standard S. Varde vs State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609), Avaya Global Connect (122 TTJ 300). 30. Learned AR vehemently argued that sale presupposes payment of „lumpsum monetary consideration‟. Transfer without monetary consideration is not a sale, for this purpose reliance was placed on Motor & General Stores Private Limited (66 ITR 692) (SC), Bharat Bijlee Ltd., (54 SOT 571), Avaya Global Connect (1…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Salora International Ltd

ITA/12/2003HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Sanat Kapoor, Ms Ananya
Section 260ASection 391Section 50

…ment to enable it to file its objections to the Scheme if the same was considered to be prejudicial to its interest. The Tribunal then referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sadanand S. Varde and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Ors.: (2001) 247 ITR 609 (Bom.) and observed that after approval by a Company Court, a scheme of arrangement acquires statutory recognition. ITA 12/2003 Page 9 of 28 7. The Tribunal noted that only Rs. 32.64 Crores had been received by the Assessee in terms of paragraph 12 of the Scheme and the amount of Rs. 17.64 crores was given to the Assesse…