← 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

Vodafone Idea Ltd (Erstwhile Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd), Mumbai vs. PCIT-Circle 5, Mumbai

ITA 662/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

date as 01 April 2018. The assessee has intimated to the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 5(2)(2) the details relating to amalgamation of ABT into VIL vide letter dated 04 February 2019 1.2 The Assessee filled its return of income ... Book in which assessee replied to the Assessing Officer dated 11.11.2019 in which assessee has specifically submitted a detailed note on the scheme of amalgamation along with the change of name. 12. With the above submissions, Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the Assessment Order

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

nature of CCD's issued in FY 2008-09 were for specific purposes of acquisition of M/s. Glamouroom Taps Private Limited (which was later amalgamated with the company w.e.f 01.04.2008). 3.2 Erred in failing to establish nexus between interest expenditure and exempt income earned. 3.3 Erred in disregarding the fact ... assessee that the interest incurred by the assessee is specifically towards acquisition of shares in M/s Glamouroom Taps Pvt. Ltd. which company subsequently stood amalgamated with the assessee company and such amalgamation has been approved by the court with effect from 01.04.2008. We make it clear that the assessing officer

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

amalgamation, there was no sale of any assets by the transferor company (sixth respondent) to the transferee company (ninth respondent) in the amalgamation. Thus, it is urged that there being no sale or exchange or lease of immovable property in the case of amalgamation, the transfer of the assets ... financial services sector Further, the Explanatory Statement to Amalgamation of ABNL and Birla Global Finance Ltd (BGFL), effected in 2006, also mentioned the reason behind amalgamation that ABNI and BGFL belonged to the same group and amalgamation would further the overall objective of the Group to consolidate Financial Services Business

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

amalgamation, there was no sale of any assets by the transferor company (sixth respondent) to the transferee company (ninth respondent) in the amalgamation. Thus, it is urged that there being no sale or exchange or lease of immovable property in the case of amalgamation, the transfer of the assets ... financial services sector Further, the Explanatory Statement to Amalgamation of ABNL and Birla Global Finance Ltd (BGFL), effected in 2006, also mentioned the reason behind amalgamation that ABNI and BGFL belonged to the same group and amalgamation would further the overall objective of the Group to consolidate Financial Services Business

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Telepeformance Global Services P. Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S.Intelenet Global Services P.Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 6473/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. 4. M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. was a company which got amalgamated with an erstwhile company, viz. M/s Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 7.7.2011, as per the approval of the Bombay High Court dated 5.3.2013. Thereafter ... date of sale of these shares, the assessee (SKR BPO) was very much in existence and the assessee, namely, SKR BPO, got amalgamated with the erstwhile company, M/s Serco BPO with effect from 7/7/2011. The Ld.AO observed that the shares in M/s Sparsh BPO Services Pvt Ltd was valued

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2394/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

been that the company M/s. Megacorp Developers Pvt. Ltd. had been merged with M/s. Dreamz Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Dreamz Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. vide amalgamation vide amalgamation order of the Hon’ble jurisdict order of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court dated 10.10.2014 and ional High Court dated 10.10.2014 and that ... final order of dictional High Court, it did not file the copy of the final order of the Hon’ble High Court sanctioning the amalgamation on the Hon’ble High Court sanctioning the amalgamation on the Hon’ble High Court sanctioning the amalgamation on 10.10.2014. Nor the assessee has categorically

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1849/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1848/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1532/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1531/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1530/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 613/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 532/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

amount is in the nature of compensation received by assessee for the proposed acquisition that could not be concluded. He submitted that had this amalgamation to happen, assessee would have been enriched with a profit making apparatus that would have boosted the business structure of assessee. He thus supported

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

head ‘income from other sources’. M/s. Tata Industries Ltd c) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Amalgamations P Ltd reported in 108 ITR 895 (Mad) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 92 Taxman 132 (SC). In this case it was held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle -2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Cri Pumps Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore

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

ITA 430/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 430/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 40A(2)(b)

Income tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore has erred in deleting the Royalty payment of Rs. Rs 4,12,50,564/- made to M/s C.R.I Amalgamations P Ltd on the ground that the assessee is the owner of the trade mark CRI". 3.The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have ... previous year relevant to assessment year 2013-14, the assessee company has paid Rs. 4,12,50,564/- as royalty to M/s. CRI Amalgamations Pvt Ltd, :-3-: ITA. No:430/Chny/2018 the holding company for using the trade mark ‘CRI’. The assessee claims before the AO that, it is using trade

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

well in law the learned CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre ) erred in assuming that depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the I.T Act, 1961. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice, therefore the appeal ... figure could have been adjusted against capital reserved rather than name as ‘goodwill’. Thereafter, he discussed the issue on the method of accounting for amalgamation and the judgment in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) and observed as under:- 5.1 CIT (A) in its earlier decisions relied on Supreme

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R
Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

stated judicial precedents where there is an emerging consistent view in this regard that if an extraordinary event has taken place by way of amalgamation that company cannot be considered as a comparable one and following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude SPI Technologies ... Regarding the amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiary Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Limited has taken place with effect from 1-4-2015, the DR observed that the assessee has not demonstrated any increase in profits due to this amalgamation. Therefore, this amalgamation has no impact on comparability. Accordingly, the plea was rejected