“amalgamation”

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that in view of the extraordinary event of demerger of the plastic division of the company and amalgamation of Teck Men Tools Private Limited during the year under consideration, the company cannot be included as a valid comparable. He supported the order

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that in view of the extraordinary event of demerger of the plastic division of the company and amalgamation of Teck Men Tools Private Limited during the year under consideration, the company cannot be included as a valid comparable. He supported the order

DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground number 5 and 6 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Visesh Circle-17(1), Infotecnic Ltd), 703, Arunachal New Delhi Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv4805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee is also raised funds from its GDR issue in the earlier years. One subsidiary also was merged with the company as per the amalgamation scheme sanctioned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as per its order dated 28.01.2011. The company has the board of directors who are also ... income tax act. 14. With respect to ground No. 5 and 6 it was submitted that M/s. Positive Console Private Limited amalgamated into Assessee Company as per amalgamation scheme sanctioned by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 28/01/2011. It was stated that Assessee Company has made a total

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Appeals are allowed

Investment Limited) belongs to Jindal Group of Companies and is its promoter company. It was holding shares of Jindal Ferro Alloy Ltd. (“JFAL”). Vide amalgamation scheme sanctioned under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred ... shares of JSL at the rate of Rs. 218 per share, calculated the profit on receipts of shares of JSL under the scheme of amalgamation at Rs. 5,31,28,579/-, and taxed the same as ‘business income’. Revenue contended that since the Respondent-assessee was holding JFAL shares

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Appeals are allowed

Investment Limited) belongs to Jindal Group of Companies and is its promoter company. It was holding shares of Jindal Ferro Alloy Ltd. (“JFAL”). Vide amalgamation scheme sanctioned under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred ... shares of JSL at the rate of Rs. 218 per share, calculated the profit on receipts of shares of JSL under the scheme of amalgamation at Rs. 5,31,28,579/-, and taxed the same as ‘business income’. Revenue contended that since the Respondent-assessee was holding JFAL shares

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

Investment Limited) belongs to Jindal Group of Companies and is its promoter company. It was holding shares of Jindal Ferro Alloy Ltd. (“JFAL”). Vide amalgamation scheme sanctioned under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred ... shares of JSL at the rate of Rs. 218 per share, calculated the profit on receipts of shares of JSL under the scheme of amalgamation at Rs. 5,31,28,579/-, and taxed the same as ‘business income’. Revenue contended that since the Respondent-assessee was holding JFAL shares

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeal is dismissed

Rs.32,25,180. In the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], the Assessee pointed out that following its amalgamation with ITA Nos. 745,746,748,749 & 750 of 2015 Page 3 of 5 2015:DHC:11448-DB H Windchimes Construction Pvt. Ltd ('WCPL') with effect ... Assessee had used the letterhead of the Assessee in writing a letter dated I 01h November 2010, in which there was no mention of amalgamation. The CIT (A) also noted that a return of income was filed in the name of the Assessee itself without disclosing the above fact

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

years which have not expired at the beginning of the previous year during which the licence is transferred. (6) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, tlie amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers lhe licence to tlie amalgamated company (being an Indian company),— !TA 1336/2010 & comi. cases. Pnge 0 or4f ... sluill nol apply in llie case oFtiie amalgamaUng company; and (//:) the provisions ofthis section shall, as lar as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company if Ihe latter had not transferred the licence.] [(7) Where, in a scheme of demerger

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

years which have not expired at the beginning of the previous year during which the licence is transferred. (6) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, tlie amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers lhe licence to tlie amalgamated company (being an Indian company),— !TA 1336/2010 & comi. cases. Pnge 0 or4f ... sluill nol apply in llie case oFtiie amalgamaUng company; and (//:) the provisions ofthis section shall, as lar as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company if Ihe latter had not transferred the licence.] [(7) Where, in a scheme of demerger

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

years which have not expired at the beginning of the previous year during which the licence is transferred. (6) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, the amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers the licence to the amalgamated company (being an Indian company),— 2013:DHC:6537-DB ITA 1336/2010 & conn. cases ... Page 7 of 46 (i) the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall not apply in the case of the amalgamating company; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

years which have not expired at the beginning of the previous year during which the licence is transferred. (6) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, tlie amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers lhe licence to tlie amalgamated company (being an Indian company),— !TA 1336/2010 & comi. cases. Pnge 0 or4f ... sluill nol apply in llie case oFtiie amalgamaUng company; and (//:) the provisions ofthis section shall, as lar as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company if Ihe latter had not transferred the licence.] [(7) Where, in a scheme of demerger

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Mira Exim

even under the part E of Chapter IV provisions relating to capital gains (i.e. Sections 45 to 55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation ... Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose of depreciation in cases of amalgamation. Section 43 falls under the heading ''Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains ofbusiness or profession''. The heading

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

even under the part E of Chapter IV provisions relating to capital gains (i.e. Sections 45 to 55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation ... Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose of depreciation in cases of amalgamation. Section 43 falls under the heading ''Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains ofbusiness or profession''. The heading

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

even under the part E of Chapter IV provisions relating to capital gains (i.e. Sections 45 to 55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation ... Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose of depreciation in cases of amalgamation. Section 43 falls under the heading ''Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains ofbusiness or profession''. The heading

CIT vs. S Net Freight India Pvt Ltd

company which is a 2012:DHC:4847-DB ITA Nos.295/2012 & 296/2012 Page 6 of 7 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.” In this case, the narrow question which arises is whether the company-investors came within the description of those owning “not less than 51% of the voting power” beneficially through the two individual shareholders. Ld. counsel for the assessee had sought

Spice Enfotainment Ltd

raised, are as follows:- For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2002-03, Spice Corp Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the amalgamating company) filed its return of income on 30th October, 2002 declaring „NIL‟ income. Subsequently, vide order dated 11th February, 2004, passed by this Court, the said ... company stood amalgamated with M/s MCorp Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the amalgamated company) with effect from 1st July, 2003. The aforesaid return was selected for scrutiny and notice dated 18th October, 2003 was issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 143 (2) of the Act in the name