“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

Alpesh K. Ajmera HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 4041/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 147Section 68Section 69

during the course of assessment proceedings. Subsequently, M/s STL got merged with another entity viz. M/s SAL(Sunrise Asian Ltd.) pursuant to scheme of amalgamation u/s 391 to 394 of The Companies Act, 1956. The Scheme was duly approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 22/03/2013 ... swapped with the shares of M/s SAL and new shares were allotted to the assessee during June, 2013 pursuant to the approved scheme of amalgamation. M/s SAL is stated to be listed public company Group 'A' shares signifying high trades with high liquidity. The assessee has sold these shares through

Vama International, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5456/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopened the assessment after expiry of four years on the contention Page | 8 ITA No. 5456/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Vama International that amalgamation reserve credited directly to Reserves and Surplus Account has escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that, since the petitioner had mentioned ... accounting entry for amalgamation reserve in the return itself and also answered queries raised by AO during assessment on the issue, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of the relevant assessment year. The pre-quisite

Vishal Singhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4106/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklamr. Vishal Singhal Vs. Nfac, G-35, B, Patel Nagar Iii, Ward 2(2)(1) Ghaziabad Cgo Complex-Ii, Purani Uttar Pradesh - 201001 Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dijps2427H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, Adv, Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca, Sh. Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)(d)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

shares of Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited on 03.04.2014 for Rs. 2,50,000. The aforesaid two companies amalgamated into YICL and on amalgamation of Anax Com Trade Limited with YICL, the appellant received 80,000 shares of YICL and on amalgamation of Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited with YICL

Brawny Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 3Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

will not be applicable in the case of Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd. as the said shares were allotted as per the scheme of amalgamation of transferee company. Further in respect of investments made in three scripts during the year, the assessee enclosed the necessary valuation reports and submitted that ... does not applicable in our case. As the shares of Dahisar Traders Pvt Ltd were allotted to us as per the Scheme of Amalgamation of transferee Company. The copy of Allotment Advice is enclosed. And in respect of investment made in three scripts during the year, the necessary valuation report

M/S. Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4621/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Circle 16(1), Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) C.R. Bldg., New Delhi Ltd., 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 16 (Pan: Aaacp5890Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Tavish Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 80I

justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act to the assessee ignoring a fact that use of substantial asset and manpower of amalgamating undertaking (Poona Unit) by the amalgamated (Parwanoo Unit) constituted reconstruction of the business u/s. 80IC(4) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... Systems GMBH. In order to expand its business operations and to synergize its business operations, the assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of erstwhile Mahle into the assessment under section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The salient features of the arrangement are as under

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4240/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Tavish Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 80I

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

Revenue allowed deduction under section 801A under the Act; and (ii) benefit of carry forward of losses is also not allowed on amalgamation of companies providing DTH business. The Memorandum Explaining provisions of Finance Act, 2002 which sought to provide benefit of section 72A of the Act qua accumulated losses ... amalgamation to telecommunication service sector read as under : "Incentive for amalgamation in telecom sector Under the existing provisions contained in section 724 of the Income-tax Act, the benefit of curry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation is allowed in cases of amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the claim of depreciation on goodwill generated on amalgamation. 6. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the depreciation is not allowable to the assessee in respect ... that the opening WDV of the Block of intangible asset (goodwill) has been acquired/generated as a result of 3 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. amalgamation of M/s Gera Realty India Pvt. Ltd. (GRIPL) with the assessee, which fact however did not form the part of assessment proceedings. The revision order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 391

Bros. Limited (KCTBL) ii. Scheme 2- It was comprised of two stages as under: It was comprised of two stages as under: Stage 1- Amalgamation of Modern Agencies Limited (MAL)&Gupkar Amalgamation of Modern Agencies Limited (MAL)&Gupkar Amalgamation of Modern Agencies Limited (MAL)&Gupkar Investments and Holdings Limited (GHIL ... that process, they have devised the scheme of mergers and demergers in two stages, stage 1, Amalgamate Nikhlesh Investments and Holdings (NIHL) with Karam Chand Thapar and Bros Ltd (KCTBL) and Amalgamate Modern Agencies Ltd and Gupkar Investments and Holdings Ltd with KCTBL. In stage 2, Demerge KCTBL into

Panorama Electronics Private Limited (Earlier Known As Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2140/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), hence an exparte order was passed confirming the action of Ld. AO. It was averred by the Ld. AR that the main grievance of the assessee was that a demand was raised under Section 147 of the Act which had already been raised earlier under Section 143(3) of the Act, even when no return was filed for M/s Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the income of which was purportedly used in the present case. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

frame assessment and create demand in the PAN number of Asahi Electronics Pvt Ltd which is a non- existing company by virtue of its amalgamation with Panorama Electronics Pvt Ltd, is illegal and bad in law. 3. That the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and upheld ... which is not 3 Panorama Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) An existing company by virtue of its amalgamation with the present assessee. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through

ITO, Nashik vs. Ankit Naresh Tulsian, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2233/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

account statements to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating in the purchase of Mis. Panchshul Marketing Ltd and thereafter sale of shares (after amalgamation] of M/s KAFL which resulted in LTCG claim of Rs.19,51,000/-. Therefore, by applying the test of preponderance of probability, the LTCG cannot

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, on following two issues: (i) incorrect allowance of depreciation on ‘goodwill' acquired on amalgamation which was denied in earlier assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 by the Assessing Officer (ii) incorrect determination of carry-forward of business losses ... after due consideration of the submission of the assessee and carrying out required enquiries, accepted the claim of depreciation on goodwill, which arose on amalgamation of ‘Prism TV P Ltd' with the assessee. It was contended that revisionary proceedings against assessment order cannot be initiated unless conjunctive conditions of section

DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee company as per “Note-25” of its annual accounts, had pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation reported that its infrastructure business was transferred to and vested in PCHPL w.e.f 01/04/2011, therefore, its claim that its receipts were for infrastructure services ... DCIT observed that in “Note 25” of the Annual Accounts of the assessee company, it was reported that pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation the infrastructure business of the assessee company was transferred to and vested in “People Combine Hosiptality Private Limited” (PCHPL) w.e.f 01.04.2011. The Ld. DR submitted that

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 205/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodand

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee company as per “Note-25” of its annual accounts, had pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation reported that its infrastructure business was transferred to and vested in PCHPL w.e.f 01/04/2011, therefore, its claim that its receipts were for infrastructure services ... DcIT*= observed that in “Note 25” of the Annual Accounts of the assessee company, it was reported that pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation the infrastructure business of the assessee company was transferred to and vested in “People Combine Hosiptality Private Limited” (PCHPL) w.e.f 01.04.2011. The Ld. DR submitted that

Ponnapula Sulochana, L/R of Late Ponnapula Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

return was not filed on account of any omission or wrong statement or omission contained therein and the delay occurred on account of and amalgamation from the NCLT. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta further relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Shrikant Mohta

Ponapula Sulochana Lr Late P Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80