← 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

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

second and subsequent years 7 Claim of 03 deduction for bad debts 8 Carry - forward and adjustment of Capital Loss of amalgamating 4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 in ITA No.5417/Del/2017 are as under:- 1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... view of the different rulings and question of law involved appeal is filed. 5) Carry forward and adjustment of Long Term Capital Loss of amalgamating company with the amalgamated company ie. the assessee company.. The learned CIT(Appeals)erred in deleting the addition of the LTCG ie allowed

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

second and subsequent years 7 Claim of 03 deduction for bad debts 8 Carry - forward and adjustment of Capital Loss of amalgamating 4. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 in ITA No.5417/Del/2017 are as under:- 1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... view of the different rulings and question of law involved appeal is filed. 5) Carry forward and adjustment of Long Term Capital Loss of amalgamating company with the amalgamated company ie. the assessee company.. The learned CIT(Appeals)erred in deleting the addition of the LTCG ie allowed

Cowtown Infotech Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5845/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2014-15 Cowtown Infotech Services Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of (As Successor On Amalgamation To Vs. Income Tax, Futuretech Constructions & Precast Central Circle-7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Private Limited), 412, Floor-4, Aayakarbhavan, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Maharshikarve Road, Cawasji Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan : Aaacc4889L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S.Mahajan, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 41(1)Section 43B

KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cowtown Infotech Services Deputy Commissioner Limited, of (As successor on amalgamation to Vs. Income Tax, futuretech Constructions & Precast Central Circle-7(3), Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Private Limited), 412, Floor-4, AayakarBhavan, 17G Vardhaman Chamber ... Assessee has submitted that the 3 Assessee is a successor on Future Tech Construction and Free Cost Pvt. Ltd., as the said company amalgamated with the present Assessee. The Assessee was entangled with the amalgamation proceedings. 7. On perusing para no. 2 of the impugned order it appears that majority