amalgamation — 1,456 case laws

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Tribunal the cash credits had remained unexplained. But the Tribunal still reduced the cash credits by Rs. 21,000, and then proceeded to amalgamate the income for the two years and to divide it equally. For reducing the cash credits by Rs. 21,000 no reasons have 'been given ... amalgamation of the income for the two years and apportionment is without authority of law. An assessment which has become final may be reopened in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal or in revision by the Commissioner, or under an order of rectification of mistake, or pursuant

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Tribunal the cash credits had remained unexplained. But the Tribunal still reduced the cash credits by Rs. 21,000, and then proceeded to amalgamate the income for the two years and to divide it equally. For reducing the cash credits by Rs. 21,000 no reasons have 'been given ... amalgamation of the income for the two years and apportionment is without authority of law. An assessment which has become final may be reopened in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal or in revision by the Commissioner, or under an order of rectification of mistake, or pursuant

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Tribunal the cash credits had remained unexplained. But the Tribunal still reduced the cash credits by Rs. 21,000, and then proceeded to amalgamate the income for the two years and to divide it equally. For reducing the cash credits by Rs. 21,000 no reasons have 'been given ... amalgamation of the income for the two years and apportionment is without authority of law. An assessment which has become final may be reopened in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal or in revision by the Commissioner, or under an order of rectification of mistake, or pursuant

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2875/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blestate Bank Of India V. Acit – 2(2)(1) {Successor To State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur} Room No. 545 State Bank Of India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai - 400020 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aadcs4750R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 2(2)(1) V. M/S. State Bank Of India Room No. 545, 5Th Floor {Successor To State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur} State Bank Of India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai - 400020 3Rd Floor, Sbi Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaacs8577 (Earlier Aadcs4750R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Paridiwala Department By : Shri Jasbir Chowhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. ParidiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chowhan

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

subjected to the charge of tax for the assessment year 2012-13 was the income of the erstwhile entity (S) prior to amalgamation. The consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. It could ... which assessment proceedings could be initiated or an order of assessment. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on September 26, 2013 to the amalgamating company, 5, which was followed by a notice to it under section 142(1). Prior to the date on which the jurisdictional

Hdfc Bank Ltd. (As Successor of Lord Krishna Bank), Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid directions

ITA 753/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Cit(A) Was Filed In The Name Of Centurion Bank Of Punjab Limited. This Appeal Has Been Disposed Off Ex-Parte By The Cit(A) Vide The Order Impugned In Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER HDFC Bank Ltd. (As a successor in amalgamation to Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. which in turn is a successor in amalgamation to Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.), HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg ... merger with HDFC Bank Limited, and therefore, the appeal before us has been filed in the name of HDFC Bank Limited as successor in amalgamation to Centurion Bank Limited which in turn was successor in amalgamation to Lord Krishna Bank. 4. When the matter was called for hearing

DCIT Central Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realators Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1545/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol B. Kirtane, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct in allowing the business loss of Rs.62,55,068/- claimed on account of depreciation and amortization of amalgamation expenses, which was capitalized to work-in-progress because the assessee had only one contract and therefore, entire expenses including depreciation were liable to be capitalized as work in progress ... Ground No.1 of ITA No.1543/M/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 11. Assessee’s claim of business loss on account of depreciation and amortization of amalgamation expenses which was capitalized to work in progress has been disallowed by the AO, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the business loss claimed

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

issue relates to A.O.'s action in denying depreciation on goodwill u/s. 32(1)(ii) arising to the Appellant pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Jurisdictional High Court, contending that the denial of depreciation ought to be restricted to the claim made by the Appellant ... formed only to issue preference shares by the assessee company at 17 M/s. Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd. more than FMV, so that on amalgamation, the investment of VDPL of amount of Rs.53,06,85,960 in the assessee company, which was the only major asset in the books of VDPL

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7457/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7457/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Accenture Solutions Private Limited(‘Asol) [As A Successor To Accenture Services Private Limited (“Aspl”) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date Of 1 December 2016] Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 079. Pan: Aaach-3235-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat Cit Dr & Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat CIT DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

issued to the assessee in the name “ M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.” . During the pendency of the assessment proceedings the said company got amalgamated with “ Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” by virtue of order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 20/10/2016 approving scheme of Amalgamation. 3 The assessee vide ... communication dated 14/12/2016 informed the Assessing Officer about approval of Scheme of Amalgamation of M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. with M/s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 20/10/2016. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that in the aforesaid communication the assessee

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

submitted that this company is functionally different and fails under the employee cost filter. It was further submitted that there is a scheme of amalgamation of earlier company by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, on 22.2.2006 and in view of amalgamation, the financials ... extent of Rs.1.04 crores, which indicates that the assessee is outsourcing the work. Accordingly, it cannot be selected as a comparable. Due to amalgamation during the year, the assessee’s business model has changed and because of employee cost filter also, this comparable has to be excluded. 13.1 After considering

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

submitted that this company is functionally different and fails under the employee cost filter. It was further submitted that there is a scheme of amalgamation of earlier company by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, on 22.2.2006 and in view of amalgamation, the financials ... extent of Rs.1.04 crores, which indicates that the assessee is outsourcing the work. Accordingly, it cannot be selected as a comparable. Due to amalgamation during the year, the assessee’s business model has changed and because of employee cost filter also, this comparable has to be excluded. 13.1 After considering

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 1

lakhs paid to BSE Ltd., while computing income from business. The sum was paid to BSE Ltd., to give effect to a scheme of amalgamation of Sasken Network Engineering Ltd., with the assessee. The AO and CIT(A) held that the expenditure is capital expenditure and disallowed the claim ... nature and in the alternative submitted that the assesee should be allowed deduction under section 35DD of the Act which allows expenditure on amalgamation at 1/5th of the expenditure over a period of 5 Assessment Years. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that without going into

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

appeal relates to disallowance of consequential depreciation of ₹ 5,79,08,466/- on increased written down value (WDV) of the assets transferred on amalgamation. 27. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that in previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07, some companies merged with the assessee ... certain case laws cited by both the parties. The only dispute under consideration is whether, the written down value of the assets transferred on amalgamation was to be computed in the hands of the amalgamated company considering the unabsorbed depreciation, i.e depreciation not given effect to, in the assessment

M/S. Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1773/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.CIT(DR)

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

Circle-6(1)(1), Engineering and Lubrication India Bengaluru Ltd. – as successor to SKF Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation between SKF Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Lincoln Helios (India) Ltd.) 249/250, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Phase – 3, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560 099. PAN – AAACC

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

issues is time barred by limitation under section 263(2) of the Act. 1. Unpaid leave encashment. 2.1 The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. was amalgamated with ICICI Bank with effect from August 12, 2010 in terms of the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Reserve Bank of India, vide ... under sub section (4) of section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In pursuance to ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 the said amalgamation the liability for Bonus, Pension, leave encashment, gratuity as appearing in the Books of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited as on August

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 3031/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3031/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 36(1)(iii)

assessee’s appeal was allowed on merits. Nevertheless, this issue was taken and was placed for arguments before us. The assessee company has been amalgamated with M/s Spirit Textile Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated ... Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd. ceased to exist. The facts of 4 I.T.A. No. 3031/Mum/2019 M/s Spirit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the AO. Despite this, the AO issued jurisdictional notice only in the name of the non-existing company

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 3028/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3028/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenges The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 3

material placed on record before us. The decisions relied on by Ld. AR has been considered before us. The assessee company has been amalgamated with M/s Spirit Textiles Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 20.09.2013 and on filing ... High Court order with ROC on 27.11.2013, the Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd. ceased to exist. The facts of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of AO and the same is also evident at page no. 2 of the assessment order. In the present case, despite the fact that

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

head 'reserves and surplus' cannot be treated as a benefit or perquisite arising from business or exercise of profession. The difference amount post amalgamation was the amalgamation reserve and it could not be said that it is out of normal transaction of the business. The present transaction is capital ... nature arose on account of amalgamation of 15 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 four companies. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the manner in which the Revenue wants to treat this amount is not in consonance with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 224. Further

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

head 'reserves and surplus' cannot be treated as a benefit or perquisite arising from business or exercise of profession. The difference amount post amalgamation was the amalgamation reserve and it could not be said that it is out of normal transaction of the business. The present transaction is capital ... nature arose on account of amalgamation of 15 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 four companies. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the manner in which the Revenue wants to treat this amount is not in consonance with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 224. Further

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

assessee had notified the learned Assessing Officer vide its Chartered Accountants' letter dated 5 April, 2010 that erstwhile Diamond Dye-Chem Limited had been amalgamated by Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 26 February, 2010 into BASF India Ltd. with effect from 1st February, 2010 and consequently Diamond ... existing person: Though the assessee had notified the learned Assessing Officer vide its letter dated April, 2010 that erstwhile Diamond Dye-Chem Limited had amalgamated into BASF India Ltd. by Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 26th February, 2010, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Crores and INR 3.33 Crores claimed by the Appellant in its Goodwill return of income, on Goodwill arising pursuant to an arising on amalgamation, and a busines acquisition in a slump sale account of respectively, during the Impugned AY, failing to appreciate that Amalgamatio the same is a mandatory allowance ... Assessee received the approval from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for the merger of two companies with itself under a Scheme of Amalgamation, i.e., Tyco Electronics Systems Pvt Ltd (“TESIL”) -- a fellow subsidiary, and XOL Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (XOL)- a subsidiary of the Assessee. The appointed date

“amalgamation”

Leading authorities on amalgamation

Judgments citing amalgamation

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Hdfc Bank Ltd. (As Successor of Lord Krishna Bank), Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

DCIT Central Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realators Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

M/S. Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore