← 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

M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (TDS)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3951/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Chandip Singh
Section 80Section 80ASection 80H

Unilver ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 1(1) 27. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assesse claimed certain expenses in connection with amalgamation of M/s Industrial Perfumes Ltd. with the assessee. One of the claim was a sum of Rs.7,09,997/- towards legal cost incurred in respect

Lucky Stock Broking P Ltd., Mum vs. ITO-10(2)(2), Mum

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 143(1)

very low prices through the route of preferential allotment (private placement) i.e. off market transactions. And another route to acquire the shares was through Amalgamation or merger. By these routes, the beneficiaries of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) are allotted shares of a private limited company which is subsequently amalgamated

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products. By a process of amalgamation, the assessee had acquired the business of the amalgamating companies. However, for the fruitful exercise of its business as a business proposition, the assessee thought ... compete agreement with a person who had the knowledge of the entire operations, so as to get the full yield of the amalgamated company's business. In that context, rightly, the assessee took a commercial decision to pay non-compete fee to U. Mohanrao and going by the decision

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

further submitted that some of the TDS/ TCS certificate are issued in the name of amalgamating company (i.e. SCL/ Grasim Industries). Due to the amalgamation during the year under consideration, some of these TDS/ TCS certificates were issued by the parties in the name of the erstwhile entity. Page ... Scheme of Amalgamation, wherein it has been mentioned that all taxes paid/ payable by the Transferor Company (including TDS) shall be deemed to be paid by the Transferee Company. Accordingly, credit in respect of TDS/ TCS deposited in the name of the amalgamating company ought to be allowed

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

further submitted that some of the TDS/ TCS certificate are issued in the name of amalgamating company (i.e. SCL/ Grasim Industries). Due to the amalgamation during the year under consideration, some of these TDS/ TCS certificates were issued by the parties in the name of the erstwhile entity. Page ... Scheme of Amalgamation, wherein it has been mentioned that all taxes paid/ payable by the Transferor Company (including TDS) shall be deemed to be paid by the Transferee Company. Accordingly, credit in respect of TDS/ TCS deposited in the name of the amalgamating company ought to be allowed

Rathi Cermics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6136/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

circumstances and facts of the case, the reassessment framed in the name of M/s Rathi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. which had since amalgamated with M/s DBG Leasing and Housing Ltd. and had ceased to exist in the eye of law, was non est." 4. At the time of hearing ld. Counsel ... ITR194(SC) to contend that Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Assessment Order passed in the name of amalgamating company. 6. As the additional grounds arise out of question of law same are taken on record. Since this Bench is first dealing with question of law alone

Rashi Agrawal, Cuttacki vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

Rs.1/- per share. It was the submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the said company was amalgamated with M/s Kailash Auto. on 24.01.2013. Consequent to the amalgamation 1 lakh shares of M/s Kailash Auto was issued to the assessee in lieu

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). Considering the ratio of decisions of the Honble High courts, it is clear the Pr.CIT before holding the order

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

Supreme Court) wherein the Hon’ble Supremem Court held: “In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue ... directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before

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

Supreme Court) wherein the Hon’ble Supremem Court held: “In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue ... directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before

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

Supreme Court) wherein the Hon’ble Supremem Court held: “In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue ... directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before

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

Supreme Court) wherein the Hon’ble Supremem Court held: “In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue ... directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before

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

Supreme Court) wherein the Hon’ble Supremem Court held: “In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue ... directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before

State Bank of India(As A Successor to Bhaartiya Mahila Bank Limited), Mumbai vs. Principle Commissionr of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1052/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Pcit-2, Mumbai (As A Successor To Bhartiya Room No. 344, Aayakar Vs. Mahila Bank Limited) Bhavan, M. K. Road, Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020. Taxation 3Rd Floor, Corporation Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Bank Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Wherein It Has Challenged The Validity Of Ao Passing The Order In The Name Of Erstwhile Bhartiya Mahila Bank Limited (Hereinafter “Bmbl”), Even Though, It Was Merged With M/S. State Bank Of India W.E.F. 01.04.2017 (Vide Notification Dated 22.02.2017). In This Regard, It Is Noted That From 01.04.2017, Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd Got Merged/Amalgamated

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263

India with State Bank of India which is an incident happening in subsequent AY 2018-19, but the AO was aware of this amalgamation from a perusal of the assessment order dated 05.12.2019 (i.e. after the amalgamation w.e.f. 01.04.2017). The Ld AR assails the action of AO to have framed ... Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd. instead of State Bank of India. According to Ld. AR, the AO despite knowing about the fact of amalgamation, he erred in framing the assessment order on 05.12.2019 in the name of M/s. Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd , which action of AO is bad in law because

Mita Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT - CC - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
Section 269TSection 271E

From the Notes to the Annual Accounts of the assessee for the relevant year, it was noted that pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata vide its order dated 22.03.2016, 6 transferor/amalgamating companies, (1) M/s. Denro Holdings P. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Fiscal ... Goldline Tracon P. Ltd., (iv) M/s. Kartik Credit P Ltd, (v) M/s. Navodaya Exim P. Ltd and (vi) Ushaditya Trading P. Ltd. have been amalgamated with our assessee ite. M/s. Mita Holdings P. Ltd. wef 01.04.2014. Prior to this amalgamation, the aggregate loans received

DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Priapus Developers Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

contended that the investment which resulted in dividend income during the year under consideration were made in earlier years and that too by amalgamating two group concerns in view of direction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and therefore, no fresh investment was made by the appellant ... that major exempt income was earned by the appellant from shares of IHFL which were acquired by the appellant by way of amalgamation. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant could have incurred any kind of indirect expenses for earning of dividend income. The contentions of the AR have

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 4767/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Membr Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 144CSection 254Section 260ASection 36(1)(ii)

assessee as per the profile of the assessee and Keynote. He submitted, in assessment year 2007-08 Keynote was excluded as comparables because of amalgamation. However, he submitted, comparability of a company has to be considered based on each year’s facts. As regards, Brescon & Khandawala, learned Departmental Representative submitted