“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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

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

Judgments citing amalgamation

A.C.Strips Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 53/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C Strips Pvt. Ltd. 20, New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacca0568N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

such liability in his accounts. Explanation 2.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "successor in business" means,-- (i) where there has been an amalgamation of a company with another company, the amalgamated company; (ii) where the first-mentioned person is succeeded by any other person in that business

Assam Supari Traders, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8717/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 8717/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Assam Supari Traders, Vs Acit, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Circle-48(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofa7566M Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

such liability in his accounts. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "successor in business" means,— (i) where there has been an amalgamation of a company with another company, the amalgamated company; (ii) where the first-mentioned person is succeeded by any other person in that business

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

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). 20. The law interpreted by the Hon’ble High Courts, in the above said cases, would make it clear that ... powers of the assessing officer, which is not legally permitted. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd (supra), Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (supra) and Amalgamations Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Courts have expressed the view that the Ld PCIT should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Mehul Krishnkant Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 29(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1654/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemehul Krishnakant Vs. Acit, Circle – 29(2) Mehta Room No. 202, C-10, Shop No. 24, Sharmila 2Nd Floor Bkc, Apartments, Model Bandra (E), Town, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400080. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm6130D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravi Swarna.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Swarna.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy.DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

suspicious on the facts of earning long term capital gains and dealt on the information in respect of purchase of shares, amalgamation and the analysis of scrip, sale, purchases and trading of scrip and the investigation report of the operators. The AO is of the opinion that ... considered the fact that the assessee has purchased the shares and after purchasing the shares ,the company was amalgamated and bonus issue took place and all the transactions of purchases and sales were supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR also emphasized that the documentary evidences establishing the genuineness

ACIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dattatray Pandurang Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is set aside

ITA 2468/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2468/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri. Dattatray Jayantika Singh Pandurang Mhaiskar Asst. Commissioner Of Mumbai Income Tax 6(1) (1) 501, Dattashram Lane बिधम/ Mumbai No.1 Hindu Colony, Room No 504, Aaykar Vs. Dadar, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K.Road, 400014 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aatpm1257A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Rander प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar (Sr. Ar.) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2021, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 53 Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (SR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 22Section 292BSection 3Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

same. In response, the appellant submitted the order, dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat approving scheme of amalgamation of Simar Energy (Gujarat) Private Limited with Samalpatti Power Company Pvt. Ltd. (SPCPL). As per the scheme of amalgamation shares of SPCPL held by the Appellant ... case before us know consideration has been received by the shareholders on account of reduction of share capital. Paragraph 7 of the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court clearly provides that capital reduction would take place without any payment to the holders of shares. Therefore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Instnat Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4755/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Shri Abt Y Varkeydy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Instant Holdings Tax-14(2)(1), 432, Aayakar Limited, 213, Bezzola Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M K Marg, Complex ‘B’ Wing, 71- Mumbai-400 020 Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400 071 Pan Aacck5600M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, C.A. Revenue By : Mr. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Tripuri

Section 14ASection 263

Tracom P Ltd to the assessee herein. Hence, M/s Idea Tracom P Ltd became subsidiary of assessee herein. 6. Subsequently on 31.3.2012, the assessee amalgamated M/s Idea Tracom P Ltd with itself. 3 7. The case of the assessing officer is that the above said shares in four companies have ... crores. Thus, there was a benefit of Rs.37.32 crores in this transaction to M/s Idea Tracom P Ltd. Since the assessee company herein has amalgamated itself the above said M/s Idea Tracom P ltd on 31.3.2012, the AO took the view that the said benefit has been passed

Mylan Laboratoreis Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1897/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 32

assessment order was passed on 31/12/2018 making several adjustments/additions including the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under section 32 of the Act with which we are concerned in this appeal. 3. Assessee filed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned ... order was passed on 31/10/2019 making various additions, which includes the issue relating to the disallowance of depreciation claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under section 32 of the Act. Assessee is, therefore, filed this appeal on as many as nine grounds, but at the time of arguments gave

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

conditions of clause (iv) or, as the case may be, of clause (v) of section 47 are satisfied; or (b) by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company in a scheme of amalgamation, and the amalgamated company is an Indian company, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the actual ... cost of the block of assets in the case of the transferee-company or the amalgamated company, as the case may be, shall be the written down value of the block of assets as in the case of the transferor-company or the amalgamating company for the immediately preceding previous