← 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

Cyqyator Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2370/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2370 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Cyquator Media Services Private Limited, 18Th Floor, A Wing Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaecp-0069-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. All The Grounds Of Appeal Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Disallowance U/S. 14A Of 2 The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 [In Short ‘The Rules’].

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 14A

that the assessee had received equity shares of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.(ZEEL) to the tune of Rs.1466.60 crores consequent to the scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 02/12/2011. The aforesaid shares were acquired at Nil cost, hence, there was no actual outflow ... read with Rule 8D. From the annual report of the assessee for the financial year 2011-12, we find that the scheme of amalgamation between Essel Business Process Ltd and the assessee was sanctioned by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 02/12/2011, w.e.f. 15/10/2011. We further find that