“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

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

predecessor and successor in the case of succession referred to in clauses (xiii) and (xiv) of section 47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating and amalgamated company' in the case of amalgamating or to the 'demerged and resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case ... shall not exceed, the amount of depreciation as if the succession, amalgamation etc. had not taken place. This question was posed, to the appellant's AR. who has vide a separate note replied as under: "Now, a question has arisen, whether in view of the 5th proviso to section

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5662/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 32(1)(ii)

Azofen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1970/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleazofen Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Range – 9 (1)(2) 37/38, Lk Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, Marol Naka, Marol, M.K. Road. Andheri Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400059. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca5098F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 145(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 73

extent of Rs. 15,79,00,000/- in respect of loan from Balu India Pvt. Ltd., taken by Easiworks Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the amalgamating company, in the earlier financial year. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming ... from derivatives is specifically excluded from the definition of " speculative transaction" and also that (b) loss from trading in shares is on account of amalgamation of business of Easiworks Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and accordingly the same is one of the principle businesses of the company and accordingly the loss

Payal Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3701/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpayal Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle 1 Cabin No. 2-A, 111, Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Satyam Shopping Centre, Wayale Nagar, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar, Khadakpada, (East), Kalyan (West), Mumbai – 400 077 421301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp6567B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.S. MathuriaFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessment was made or the assessment year 2009-10 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (copy placed in the paper book) sanctioned the amalgamation between Payal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Fortran Steel pvt. Ltd. w.e.f 01.06.2010. In the paper book the assessee has also placed gross profit ratio chart showing

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

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

M/S Marlabs Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 457/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (Successor Of Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 14Th Floor, Citrine Block-4, Commissioner Of Bagmane World Technology Income Tax, Centre, Circle – 4(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Vs. Bangalore. Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aaccm6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri L. Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Various Issues On The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made In Respect Of The International Transactions Between Assessee & Its Ae.

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 394

income that was sought to be subjected to the charge of tax for the year was the income of the erstwhile entity prior to amalgamation. Under an approved scheme of amalgamation Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities ... consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved u/s. 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person u/s. 2(31) against whom assessment proceedings

M/S. Mobily Infotech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

attracted. (ii) There is no provision in section 36(1)(iii) governing the allowability of interest expenditure in case of an amalgamation or demerger. The Legislature has specifically provided for the allowability of tax benefits and concessions in case of an amalgamation / demerger wherever it intended to. For example: section ... section 35AB(3), section 35ABB(7)deal with the transfer of tax benefits and concession on amalgamation / demerger. It states that the tax benefits and concessions available to an undertaking of a company shall continue to be available to the undertaking on transfer of the same while concessions and benefits

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

company IT(TP)A No.297/Bang/2021 M/s. NTT Data Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 35 Extraordinary events 6.1 Eclerx has been amalgamated with Agilyst Consulting Private Limited ("ACPL") with effect from 01 April 2015. As per RPT schedule, the services of all employees and other employee benefits ... learned TPO in the order has mentioned that as per Annual Report for FY 2016-17, the HC of Bombay approved the scheme of amalgamation between ACPL and Eclerx with effect from the appointed date of April 01, 2015, which became effective from August 22, 2016 and hence, the results

M/S. Hical Infra Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range- 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai

Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section 47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case ... shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation or the demerger, as the case may be, had not taken place, and such deduction shall be apportioned between the predecessor and the successor, or the amalgamating company

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

under sub-section (1) shall be allowed— (a) if the industrial undertaking is formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing undertaking or amalgamation with another industrial undertaking; (b) unless the assessee furnishes along with the return of income the report of the accountant, as defined in the Explanation

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7724/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 148

assessee company. The Assessing Officer failed to take note that, by merger NPPL has lost its independent identity and from the date of amalgamation, ie, on 01-04-2008 it does not exist in the eyes of law and only the successor company, ie, in this case MSI, that ... assessee-company only exists. It is a trite law that after amalgamation, amalgamating company does not remain in existence and income up to the date of amalgamation should be assessed in the hands of the amalgamated company, ie, successor company in like manner and to the same expenditure

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7723/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 148

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai revised return of income in respect of merger of two wholly owned subsidiary companies as per the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 27.04.2015 effective from appointed date as on 01.04.2014. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny ... income due to the merger of entities. We are not in a position to understand the reasoning, whereas in the case of merger or amalgamation, the assessee takes the control of all the assets and liabilities including the losses and profits. We find that the CIT(A) has dealt

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

consultancy charges as revenue expenditure and allow deduction u/s.35 DD ignoring the fact that under the provisions of section 35 DD, expenditure incurred towards amalgamation or de-merger of company is allowable, being 1/5th in each of the successive years, and is not available in respect of the expenditure which ... case was discussed. It was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) that during the F.Y 2003-04 the assessee company has amalgamated M/s Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals P Ltd with itself under the scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As per the amalgamation

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

further explained that excess consideration paid by the assessee over the value of net assets acquired of YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited [Amalgamating Company] should be considered as goodwill arising on amalgamation. It was claimed that the extra consideration was paid towards the reputation which the Amalgamating Company ... short] has come to the conclusion that the authorised representatives had filed copies of the Orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two Companies; that the assets and liabilities of M/s. YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited were transferred to the assessee for a consideration; that

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 43(1)

clause, 75% of the shareholdings of the purchaser company shall be held by shareholder of the seller company. In other words, 25% of the amalgamating company continued to remain shareholder of amalgamated company as per section M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page ... shares in new company, which is evident from page no.76 of paper book – I and 30.02% of shareholdings were remained with shareholder of the amalgamated company. Being so, provisions of section 47(vi)/47(vi)(a) of the Act is not applicable in case of transaction with M/s. Sasya Gentech

ACIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ltd.(Successor M/S.Morgan Construction Co.(I)P.Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Bagchi (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

name of M/s. Morgan Construction Company Ltd (hereinafter “MCCPL”) when M/s. MCCPL was no longer in existence and had already amalgamated with M/s. Siemens Limited and when the AO was aware that M/s. MCCPL had already merged with M/s. Siemens Ltd w.e.f. 1st October, 2011 vide Hon’ble Bombay High ... have framed scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without issuance of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to the amalgamated company i.e. M/s. Siemens Ltd. and not to the non- existing company i.e. M/s. MCCPL. This legal issue was found in favour