← All Phrases

“amalgamation”

Mergers & RestructuringSection 2(1B)Section 2(1B)1,456 judgments

The decision most relied on for amalgamation is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on amalgamation

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
416 ITR 613 · 2019 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 to a non-existent entity, such as an amalgamating company post-merger, is a substantive illegality, rendering assessment proceedings void ab initio. Participation in such proceedings does not estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the notice.

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.

PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
443 ITR 194 · 2022 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

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.

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT
186 ITR 278 · 1990 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

Upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Therefore, any assessment or proceeding initiated against a non-existent amalgamating company is invalid as it is no longer considered a 'person' under the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd.
238 ITR 963 · 1998 · High Court
73
citing judgments

An assessment order can be deemed erroneous due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind or inadequate inquiry, warranting revision under Section 263. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax must establish the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and cannot use this power merely to direct further inquiries without such a finding.

Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Incometax/Income-tax Officer v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
137 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · High Court
60
citing judgments

Goodwill arising on amalgamation is entitled to depreciation. This principle is established by multiple High Court decisions.

Beverages 331 ITR 192 (Del) B.Raveendran Pillai v. CIT
237 Taxmann 230 · 2016 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset qualifying for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing amalgamation

Minacs P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4275/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Concentrix Services India Private Dy. Cit-10(1)(1), Limited (Erstwhile Dy. Cit-8(1)), (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Mumbai Limited, Minacs Limited, Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited & Vs. Successor To Aditya Birla Minacs It Services Limited, Pursuant To Amalgamation) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 Pan/Gir No. Aaact 1567 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-10(1)(1), Concentrix Services India Private (Erstwhile Dy. Cit-8(1)), Limited Mumbai (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited, Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited & Vs. Successor To Aditya Birla Minacs It Services Limited, Pursuant To Amalgamation) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 Pan/Gir No. Aaact 1567 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms. Ayushi Modani Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Corrigendum Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: Order U/S. 254(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Passed In The Instant Appeal On 17.02.2023. However, It Has Been Subsequently Found That Certain Inadvertent Error Had 2

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar /For Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 254(1)

Minacs Private Mumbai Limited, Minacs Limited, Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited and Vs. Successor to Aditya Birla Minacs IT Services Limited, pursuant to Amalgamation) 9th Floor, Symphony IT Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 PAN/GIR No. AAACT 1567 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. CIT-10(1)(1), Concentrix ... known as Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited, Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited and Vs. Successor to Aditya Birla Minacs IT Services Limited, pursuant to Amalgamation) 9th Floor, Symphony IT Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 PAN/GIR No. AAACT 1567 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar