← 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

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2635/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2635/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle -6(2) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)

allowable as deduction in the assessment for 2016-17. 3.6 The Appellant relies on the Decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. 140 CTR 313/ 226 ITR 188 (SC) and the decisions in (a) ACIT vs M/s Peirce Leslie India Ltd I.T.A. No. 1244/Mds/2011 ... assessee. Therefore, the same was an allowable deduction in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. (226 ITR 188). 4.4 However, Ld. AO observed that this liability pertained to M/s Pearl Ships Ltd. only and the assessee merely repaid

M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd. (As Successor of Legrand (India) Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1800/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1800/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Novateur Electrical & बिधम/ Dcit, Range-10(3)(1) Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Room No.552, Aaykar Vs. (As Successor Of Legrand Bhavan, M. K. Road, (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 61/62 Kalpatru Square, 6Th Floor, Off Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce4671N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri H. M Bhat (Sr. Dr) Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023/(22.12.2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Nikhil Tiwari Appearing For The Assessee Has Drawn Our Attention To Additional Ground Nos. 8 & 9 Wherein Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Entity [M/S.Legrand (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter “M/S. Legrand”/Non-Existent/ Merged Entity] & Not In The Name Of The Successor Entity I.E. M/S. Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. [Hereinafter “M/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H. M Bhat (SR. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

reproduced as under: - “8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the order in the name of Legrand (India) Private Limited (i.e. the amalgamation entity) which is not in existence as on the date of passing the order and hence, the order should be quashed by treating the same ... void. 9. the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order in the name of Legrand (India) Private Limited (ie. The amalgamation entity) which is not in existing as on the date of passing the order and hence, the order should be quashed by treating the same

M/S. Speed Infracon Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Tech-1, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 900/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Speed Infracon Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Tech -1, Kolkata (Successor To Harmony Infraprojects Private Vs Limited) 85, Bentinck Street Ground Floor Kolkata – 700001 [Pan : Aancs3720R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C. Roy, A.R.B. Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Addition Of Rs.7000000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act 1961. That The Addition Of Rs.451321/- As U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 & Rs.162075/- As U/S 14A. 2. That Even Otherwise The Addition Is Unwarranted When The Payee Has Disclosed The Impugned Sum As Part Of His Share Capital. 3. That Appellant Is Already Merged With M/S. Speed Infracon Private Limited Before The Order Passed By Concerned Assessing Officer. 4. That Appellant Reserves Right To Raise Additional Grounds During Hearing.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities To Submit

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, A.R.BFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 68

erstwhile company i.e. M/s. Harmony Infraprojects Private Limited. That at the time of assessment proceedings, the said company was under the process of amalgamation with the present assessee company i.e. M/s. Speed Infracon Private Limited. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed ... Assessing Officer on 27/03/2015 whereas, the said erstwhile company M/s. Harmony Infraprojects Private Limited, stood amalgamated to the present assessee company w.e.f. 01/04/2015 pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dt. 19/09/2016. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited our attention to the order