“amalgamation”

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller. Whereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature of amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various clauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from GSK and CTPL respectively ... perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find that transaction in both the cases are of slump sale and not, amalgamation as stated by the Assessing Officer. 5.19 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on the Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Ketan Dilip Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer Ketan Dilip Shah Room No. 613, 6Th Floor, Vs A- 151, Grand Paradi Apartments, Piramal Chambers, August Kranti Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra-400012. Maharashtra-400026. [Pan: Aaeps3824N] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

manipulated the price of the scrip by trading in small quantities and trading among themselves and provided an exit platform to the connected amalgamation allotters, who sold the substantial shares at the inflated price and made substantial and wrongful gain?". 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Lupin Investments Private Limited (Successor to Zyma Laboratories Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, despite the department put to notice of the factum of the amalgamation during assessment proceedings, the assessment notices and the consequent assessment order dated 27 December 2018, being issued under section 142(1) [scheme became effective after notice ... circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings are bad in law as the assessment is framed in the name of the amalgamating company, which was not in existence. 1.3 That the appellant in response to the appeal hearing Notice dated 26 June 2023 has filed additional submissions

Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd [348 ITR 302]; 2.2.2 goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset on which depreciation w/s.32 of the Act is allowable; and 2.2.3 is not merely a fictitious asset; 2.3 The Appellant therefore prays that ... depreciation on goodwill on the ground that it was neither purchased nor acquired by the assessee during the relevant previous year. The scheme of amalgamation did not explain how ABMML created the goodwill or provided for any valuation thereof. The goodwill recorded was merely an accounting adjustment to balance