“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

Ornate Multi-Modal Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 696/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleornate Multi Modal Vs. Dcit – 2(2)(2), Carriers Pvt Ltd, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Orient House, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Marzban Path, Mumbai – 400 020. Bellard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0797R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-5, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under;

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35D

section (1) is transferred, before the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section, to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation, the provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company ... amalgamation had not taken place. Ornate Multi Modal Carriers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. (3) Where the undertaking of an Indian company entitled to the deduction under sub-section (1) is transferred, before the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section, to another company in a scheme of demerger

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Clerx Services Limited ("E-Clerx"): c) E-Clerx is functionally dissimilar to the Assessee; and d) There are extra-ordinary events of amalgamation / acquisition in E-Clerx during the relevant assessment year 4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating on the following grounds raised by the Assessee

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi

Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

from KRL Trust, the ld. Counsel submitted that Kochi Refineries Limited (KRL) was merged into Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL-assessee). The Scheme of Amalgamation was sanctioned by the Central Government u/s 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 01/4/2004. A copy of the order of amalgamation ... dated 18/8/2006 is at pages 136 to 145 of the paper book and the sanctioned Scheme of Amalgamation is at pages 146 to 159 of the paper book. As per clause 8.2 of the Scheme, equity shares of BPCL were issued to individual/corporate trustees or Board of Trustees

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi

Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4608/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Cit, Circle-14(1)(2), M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., बनाम Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Vs First International Financial Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 8Th Floor, Plot Nos. C-54 & C-55, Mumbai-400020 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं/.Pan /Tan No: Aabca3223B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Senthil Kumaran

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Senthil Kumaran

appeal similarly is a wasted exercise; d) where exclusion of a comparable on account of prevalence of unique economic peculiarities on account of amalgamation restructuring, re-aligning of businesses like absorption of the employee infrastructures etc. with the new company as has been pleaded on facts and considered judicially becomes

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 41Section 80

receipt not chargeable to tax Under the income tax act .‖ 04. Facts shows that for the impugned assessment year, Hindustan Lever chemicals Ltd was amalgamated with the assessee i.e. Tata chemicals Ltd. The effective date of amalgamation was 1 June 2004 and the appointed date was 1 April 2002. Based ... case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra). The AO noted that for the impugned assessment year, Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. (HLCL) (since amalgamated with the assessee) filed its return of income on 28.11.2003, claiming a refund of ₹ 2.87 crores. In the Tata Chemicals Ltd.; AY 03-04 return

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

with the intent to restrict the depreciation allowance on assets to the extent the said assets have been used for the business of the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company. 2.4. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred in not appreciating that a proviso is normally ... goodwill, without appreciating the facts of the case. 2.6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the goodwill on amalgamation is nothing but the actual share purchase price paid on purchase of shares from its original shareholders, who were unrelated to the Appellant. 3. Short Grant

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Godrej Developers Pvt Ltd (Now Amalgamated With Godrej Project Development Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4520/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.4520/Mum/2019 (Assessment year : 2013-14) DCIT-1(1(2) vs M/s Godrej Developers Pvt Ltd (Now amalgamated with Godrej Project Development Ltd), 5th Floor, Godrej One, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 079 PAN : AAACG8316L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented ... adjusted to arrive at the cost of sale, but omitted to observe that the opening balance was taken at Rs.113.02 crore on amalgamation with a group concern. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting

M/S. Veena Patil Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 627/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

gift; (b) 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 amalgamating or demerged foreign company continue ... shareholders of the amalgamated or the resulting foreign company; M/s. Veena Patil Hospitality Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. (c) to a company where a change in the shareholding takes place in a previous year pursuant to a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), after affording

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Appellant). Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

relevant material on record. We note that in para 16.2.15 of the Annual Report of this company, it has been reported that there was amalgamation w.e.f 1/4/2008. The relevant part of the information provided in the Annual Report reads as under: Amalgamation of PAN Financial Services India Private Limited Page ... their meeting held on October 6, 2008. approved, subject to the approval of the Honorable High Courts of Karnataka and Chennai, a Scheme of amalgamation ("the Scheme") to amalgamate PAN Financial Services India Private Limited (-PAN Financial"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company engaged in providing business process management

ACIT Cir- 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 261/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

factual finding. The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed copies of the orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two companies; that the assets and Labilities of 'V‟ Led. were transferred to the assessee for a consideration; that the difference between ... cost of asset and the amount paid constituted goodwill and that the assessee-company in the process of amalgamation had acquired capital right in the form of goodwill because of which the market worth of the assessee-company stood increased. This finding has also been upheld by Tribunal. There

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R

Section 10BSection 147Section 40

Centum Electronics Ltd can be proceeded against in respect of matters connected with Solectron EMS India Ltd just because Solectron EMS India Ltd was amalgamated with Centum Electronics Ltd. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and 6. on facts in upholding the action ... before the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued in the name of amalgamating company and not the name of amalgamated company. In this case, similar notice dated 05/09/2014 ITA No.946 /Bang/2019 M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd., Bangalore Page

Global E Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

above company was excluded as comparable by the ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in IT(TP)A/No.1678/Bang/2012 , due to amalgamation of the company. It observed that though there is no such situation during the year , however, on examination of page 25 of the annual report ... list of comparables.” …….. 32. As far as Accentia Technology Ltd., is concerned, even during the previous year relevant to AY 2010-11, there was amalgamation of Ascent Infoserve Private Limited with Accentia Technology Ltd., and consequent thereto the assets and liabilities and accumulated reserves and the financial results

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Global E- Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Exclusive Agencies Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal by confirming the assessment order

ITA 1770/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

framed u/s 143(3) and the issue of jurisdiction. The Ld. Commissioner has observed that appellant has not raised such plea before AO regarding amalgamation of company and failed to bring to the notice of AO that there was no entity as M/s. Exclusive Agencies Ltd. for which the assessment

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

ITA 780/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 35A

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 ... difference between the cost of an asset and the amount paid constituted goodwill and that the assessee Company in the process of amalgamation had acquired a capital right in the form of goodwill because of which the market worth of the assessee-Company stood increased. This finding has also been

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh.DR

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

nonexistent entity i.e.Siemens Building Technologies Siemens Ltd., Mumbai. Private Limited(SBTPL), even after A.O. was informed that SBTPL has been Amalgamated with the Siemens Limited with effect from 1 October 2020 and ceased to exist before the date of issuance of such notice rendering the entire proceedings as void ... framed assessment on non existing entity i.e Siemens building technology Pvt Ltd(SBTPL), whereas the A.O has failed to appreciate that the assessee was amalgamated and the Ld.AR explained the chronology of events and substantiated the submissions with the judicial decisions and factual paper book and prayed for allowing

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)

more relevant than product similarity. The DRP noted that the functional profile of this company was similar to the assessee. 23. 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 ... profits due to this amalgamation. Therefore, this amalgamation has no impact on comparability. Accordingly, the plea was rejected. 24. With regard to acquisition resulting in inorganic growth, the DRP noted that the company has acquired entire shareholding of CLX Europe SPA, Italy, as on 22"d April 2015 and this