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

233 ITR 809Supreme Court of India1996#17301 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 17(2)(vi)Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(m)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 39transferee companytransferor companyscheme of arrangementsection 35dsection 36(1)(viia)date of transferamalgamationsection 35disallowance under section 14asection 43b

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

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…the appointed date and the effective date for the reason that the income though arising out of BFIL are earned on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 233 ITR 809 (SC). The ld. AR on the issue of percentage of deduction submitted that the total income of the assessee including income of BFIL are arising in the hands of the assessee only since BFIL ceases to exist from the appointed date and therefore 8.5% of the total income should be considered while allowing the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). The l…

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…the appointed date and the effective date for the reason that the income though arising out of BFIL are earned on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 233 ITR 809 (SC). The ld. AR on the issue of percentage of deduction submitted that the total income of the assessee including income of BFIL are arising in the hands of the assessee only since BFIL ceases to exist from the appointed date and therefore 8.5% of the total income should be considered while allowing the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). The l…

Indusind Bank Ltd, 8Th Floor, Tower 1, One India Bulls Centre Delisle Road vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1841/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…the appointed date and the effective date for the reason that the income though arising out of BFIL are earned on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 233 ITR 809 (SC). The ld. AR on the issue of percentage of deduction submitted that the total income of the assessee including income of BFIL are arising in the hands of the assessee only since BFIL ceases to exist from the appointed date and therefore 8.5% of the total income should be considered while allowing the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). The l…

ACIT Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Vibhu International Ltd. (Formely Known As M/S Core International Ltd., Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2005/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…e case on merits and thus deleting the addition of above application money of Rs. 11,75,51,436/- 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the C1T(A) was correct in not appreciating the observation in case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 809 (SC), companies and that if it is made in the name of an amalgamated company it should be set aside following the principal laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Mehta Vs. CIT(1977) 106 ITR 855 (Cal) and Roshan Lai, (1982) 134 ITR (Del). 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in not appreciating the observation of the…

Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

…ection 153C is nonexistent. It may further be noted that the company is no longer in existence and no notice can be issued on a non-existing company as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer in 233 ITR 809. There is neither undisclosed income nor income escaping assessment so as to warrant notice under Section 153C. Accordingly the proceedings be dropped in the interest of justice and render justice.” 7.1.2 The assessment was completed under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.28.3.2013 for Assessment Year 2007-08, wherein the asses…

Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO (233 ITR 809) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax