← All Phrases

“Section 170(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 170Section 170(2)18 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 170(2) is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), cited in 1,158 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 170(2)

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT
247 CTR 500 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

An assessment framed in the name of a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid, even if the amalgamated company participated in the proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd.
380 ITR 272 · 2016 · High Court
45
citing judgments

When an amalgamating company ceases to exist due to a scheme of arrangement or merger, any subsequent assessment or action under the Income-tax Act initiated against that non-existent entity is void ab initio, as it is not a 'person' under Section 2(31).

CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh
219 ITR 737 · 1996 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

A procedural defect in serving notices, such as issuing them after the assessee's death without proper service on legal representatives, can invalidate reassessment proceedings and render assessment orders void. However, an omission or defect in serving notices does not erase a tax liability created by substantive provisions, though it may render an order irregular.

Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT
170 ITD 507 · 2018 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

A scheme of amalgamation or demerger approved by the High Court, having considered public interest, cannot be disturbed by the revenue authorities solely on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to certain benefits like those under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act.

Pr. CIT v. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati
398 ITR 170 · 2017 · High Court
19
citing judgments

The assessee's responsibility to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income under section 271AAA(2) only commences when the raiding officer elicits a response from the assessee under section 132(4). If this prerequisite is not met, the benefit of no penalty cannot be denied.

(i) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.
110 TTJ 170 · 2007 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

The principal amount written off is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, even if the company is not engaged in the money lending business.

Gurera Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
258 ITR 170 · 2002 · High Court
14
citing judgments

The adequacy or sufficiency of the Assessing Officer's reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment is not justiciable by the High Court.

Judgments citing Section 170(2)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed." 7.17 Further, the ld. Sr. advocate referred to section 170(2) of the Act and submitted that where the predecessor cannot be found in the assessment of the income of the previous year in which

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bangalore

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dnh Spinners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 2624/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 170(2)Section 80I

documentary evidences placed on record. (c) The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai erred in law in not applying the provisions of section 170(2) of the Act and quashing the reassessment order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is a domestic private limited ... after taking into account all the grounds which pertain to validity of the reassessment order, jurisdictional issue and also the provisions of section 170(2) of the Act vide impugned order dated 18.02.2025,set aside the entire case to the AO for framing assessment order afresh. Page

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DCIT-3(4), Mum vs. M/S Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 530/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

Corporation Bank) assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is clear from the provisions of Section 170(2) of the Act that in the case of amalgamation, the assessment must be made on the successor i.e. the amalgamated company

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Group Holding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment years under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 6368/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 170(1)(a)Section 292B

facts, the assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is clear from the provisions of Section 170(2) of the Act that in the case of amalgamation, the assessment must be made on the successor i.e. the amalgamated company

Aksh Optifibre Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Alwar

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

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

Supreme Court as under: "14 Counsel urged that the assessment framed in the name of amalgamating company is invalid in terms of Section 170(2) of the Act. Once the amalgamation is effective, the notice had to be issued in the name of amalgamated company. The Delhi High Court ... that the amalgamating company (MRPL) cannot be regarded as a 'person' in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act. 2. Support from Section 170(2) - Counsel urged that the assessment framed in the name of amalgamating company is invalid in terms of Section 170(2) of the Act. Once

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

hereby directed to be quashed, the other arguments advanced by the ld AR on the applicability of provisions of section 170(2) of the Act and on merits of the case need not be gone into and they are left open.” Respectfully following that decision of the co-ordinate bench

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 46/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 45/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 44/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 43/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 42/DEL/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek
Section 153ASection 68

order is valid order or invalid under the provision of the Act. 14. Section 2(31) defines "Person" which includes "a company" and section 170(2) deals with succession and provides that in case of succession predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year upto ... liable for assessment till the date of succession and successor shall be assessed in respect of the income after the date of succession. Section 170(2) starts with a non-obstante clause which provides that in case if the predecessor in case of succession is not found then the successor

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4072/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Gramin Bank dated 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 respectively are nullity and as such liable to be quashed. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon section 170(2) of the Act and also relied upon the decision ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... assessee by writing a letter dated 05.12.2016, which is available at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book. 10. Section 170(2) of the Act is very categoric as to how the assessment is to be made when predecessor cannot be found. In such cases, the assessment

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4071/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Gramin Bank dated 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 respectively are nullity and as such liable to be quashed. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon section 170(2) of the Act and also relied upon the decision ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... assessee by writing a letter dated 05.12.2016, which is available at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book. 10. Section 170(2) of the Act is very categoric as to how the assessment is to be made when predecessor cannot be found. In such cases, the assessment

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4070/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Gramin Bank dated 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 respectively are nullity and as such liable to be quashed. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon section 170(2) of the Act and also relied upon the decision ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... assessee by writing a letter dated 05.12.2016, which is available at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book. 10. Section 170(2) of the Act is very categoric as to how the assessment is to be made when predecessor cannot be found. In such cases, the assessment

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4069/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Gramin Bank dated 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 respectively are nullity and as such liable to be quashed. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon section 170(2) of the Act and also relied upon the decision ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... assessee by writing a letter dated 05.12.2016, which is available at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book. 10. Section 170(2) of the Act is very categoric as to how the assessment is to be made when predecessor cannot be found. In such cases, the assessment