← 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

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 611/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

informed about the order approving the scheme of Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 amalgamation passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (‘Hon’ble NCLT’) on 14/09/2017. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 60. During

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

informed about the order approving the scheme of Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 amalgamation passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (‘Hon’ble NCLT’) on 14/09/2017. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 60. During

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

informed about the order approving the scheme of Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 amalgamation passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (‘Hon’ble NCLT’) on 14/09/2017. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 60. During

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 14ASection 250Section 37

informed about the order approving the scheme of Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3004/Mum./2019 ITA No.611/Mum./2020 ITA No.4229/Mum./2019 ITA No.1228/Mum./2020 amalgamation passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (‘Hon’ble NCLT’) on 14/09/2017. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 60. During

Raymond Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2660/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited assessee has not stated the full facts that after the sale of the unit, whether unit was amalgamated or merged with another company. In this regard, it is the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the issue is covered ... refers to the transfer before the expiry of the period of 10 years to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation and section 35D(5A) refers to the transfer before the expiry of the period in a scheme of demerger. There is no clause in the section which debars

M/S. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2519/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited assessee has not stated the full facts that after the sale of the unit, whether unit was amalgamated or merged with another company. In this regard, it is the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the issue is covered ... refers to the transfer before the expiry of the period of 10 years to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation and section 35D(5A) refers to the transfer before the expiry of the period in a scheme of demerger. There is no clause in the section which debars

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

transactions 7 M/s.United Breweries Limited. involved to be a colorable device, without appreciating that all the transactions involved were legal transactions and the amalgamation scheme, which was the trigger for the impugned transactions were duly approved by the Hon'ble High Court 7.4 The learned CIT{A) has erred ... making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there is nothing on record to show that the copy of the amalgamation scheme filed was the exact copy of the scheme approved by the Hon'ble High court 7.6 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

shall apply to any change in the shareholding of an Indian company which is a subsidiary of a foreign company as a result of amalgamation or demerger of a foreign company subject to the condition that fifty one per cent shareholders of the amalgamating or demerged foreign company continue ... shareholders of the amalgamated or the resulting foreign company.” 13. A bare perusal of sec. 79 divulges that if a change in the shareholding of the company takes place in a previous year, no loss 11 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Birla Edutech Ltd. incurred in any year prior

Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (Bic India) (As Seccessor to Bic Cello Exports P.Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (As Successor To Bic Cello Pr.Cit(Central)-3 Exports P.Ltd) Room No-1991, 19Thfloor, G-1,701/702, Lotus Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Corporate Park, Jaicoach W Point, Mumbai-400 021 E Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc9698R Assessee By : Shri. Dhanesh Bafana & Ms. Hirali Desai. Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09-11-2022

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafana, & MsFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted a paper book containing 59 pages. He referred letter dated 30.07.2018, by which the DCIT, Mumbai was intimated stating that the scheme of amalgamation of “Bic Cello Exports Private Limited” has been proposed and the copy of the Company Application No. 87 of 2018 was submitted. According to that ... letter, the scheme of amalgamation was Bic Cello (India)P. Ltd (BIC INDIA) (As Successor to Bic Cello Exports P. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 proposed between “Bic Cello Exports Private Limited” with “Bic Cello (India) Private Limited”, under section 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013. On Sept

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

assessing officer has disallowed the depreciation on Goodwill u/s 32(1), since no asset such as Goodwill was acquired in the scheme of amalgamation. Hence, failure on the part of the assessing officer to disallow the claim of depreciation on Goodwill for A.Y. 2013-14 has rendered the assessment order ... operates a national chain of multi-brand electronic stores of consumer electronics and durables under the brand name "Croma". ● As per the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by way of merger order dated 4 April 2014, the assessee and Infiniti Wholesale Limited (Formerly known

DCIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

State Bank of Travancore merged with State Bank of India with effect from 01/04/2017 by way of Gazette notification (supra). Subsequent to the amalgamation, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ... Bank of Tavancore only and assessment was also completed on 24/03/2018 on the erstwhile entity only. The Learned Counsel submitted that the fact of amalgamation was duly informed to the Assessing Officer and he has also duly noted in the first para of the assessment order. Therefore according

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

State Bank of Travancore merged with State Bank of India with effect from 01/04/2017 by way of Gazette notification (supra). Subsequent to the amalgamation, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ... Bank of Tavancore only and assessment was also completed on 24/03/2018 on the erstwhile entity only. The Learned Counsel submitted that the fact of amalgamation was duly informed to the Assessing Officer and he has also duly noted in the first para of the assessment order. Therefore according

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 143(2)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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47Section 47xSection 72A(6)

provisions governing the law of carry forward and set off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in the case of amalgamation and demerger. The ld.AR drew our attention to section 72A(6) of the Act and particularly proviso which provides that certain conditions are to complied with. The relevant ... provision of section 72A(6) reads as under:- “Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc SECTION 72A (6) Where there has been reorganisation of business, whereby, a firm is succeeded by a company fulfilling the conditions laid

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 126/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

complete facts of the case. 3.3 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Goodwill on amalgamation has no value attributable to it. 3.4 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO without appreciating the fact that Goodwill

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 12, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 125/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

complete facts of the case. 3.3 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding that Goodwill on amalgamation has no value attributable to it. 3.4 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO without appreciating the fact that Goodwill

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek
Section 153ASection 68

impugned order, following facts relevant for the issue raised in revenue’s appeal are that, erstwhile company, M/s Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s. Reliable Record Keepers Pvt. Ltd. (which is now known as M/s. Candor Renewable Energy Private Limited) vide High Court Order dated 12th August ... Subsequent to the said merger, a search action was 5 I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021& others M/s Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. carried out on the amalgamating company on 30.06.2017. However, notices u/s 153A dated 15.04.2019 were issued on the amalgamated company, i.e., M/s Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd. In response

Franklin Templeton Management (India) P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Range-6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vrinda U Matkari, DR
Section 250Section 253Section 32(1)

order of the learned CIT(A) is vitiated by errors of law and fact and by a failure to appreciate the Scheme of Amalgamation and the effect thereof. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai ... claim for depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act amounting to Rs 1,47,05,938 in respect of Goodwill arisen on amalgamation of Pioneer ITI AMC Limited (PAMC) with the Appellant. While doing so, the learned CIT(A) respectfully erred as under: 2.1 In stating that no consideration

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

written down value of the same at the beginning of the year. 4. Depreciation on Goodwill arising from scheme of amalgamation with Bangalore Genei (India) Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5.49.87.789/–: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/the Learned AO erredin not allowing ... claim for depreciation of Rs. 5,49,87,789/- representing depreciation on Goodwill arising from the scheme of amalgamation with Bangalore Genel (India) Pvt. Ltd., as claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings; (ii) stating that the claim for depreciation on Goodwill is not allowable since the same ought

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 ... taxmann.com 117 (Bombay) has held that in case the assessee rendering ITES services to AE, a company in whose case extraordinary event of amalgamation took place during relevant year, could not be accepted as comparable and was decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly in the case of Pr. Commissioner