← All Phrases

“demerger”

Mergers & RestructuringSection 2(19AA)Section 2(19AA)492 judgments

The decision most relied on for demerger is CIT v. Sonata Software Ltd. (21 Taxmann.com 23), cited in 54 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on demerger

CIT v. Sonata Software Ltd.
21 Taxmann.com 23 · 2012 · High Court
54
citing judgments

The case clarifies the negative conditions for Section 10A exemption, requiring an industrial undertaking not be formed by splitting up an existing business or using previously used machinery. It also establishes that tax benefits under provisions like Section 80J and 80IA attach to the undertaking itself, allowing successor entities to claim the unexpired benefit period.

CIT v. Micra India (P) Ltd.
231 Taxmann 809 · 2015 · High Court
42
citing judgments

An assessment order passed against a transferor company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation or demerger is non est in the eyes of law and void, as this constitutes a jurisdictional error not curable under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act.

Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT
170 ITD 507 · 2018 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

A scheme of amalgamation or demerger approved by the High Court, having considered public interest, cannot be disturbed by the revenue authorities solely on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to certain benefits like those under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act.

8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
367 ITR 266 · 2014 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The eligibility for deductions under sections 80-IB and 80-IA, and related issues like the initial assessment year, demerger, and resulting company status, are significant considerations in the context of company restructuring and tax benefits.

Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
382 ITR 443 · 2016 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An amalgamation that has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from the beginning.

Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT
420 ITR 339 · 2020 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Once a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation has been sanctioned by a competent court and due notice has been issued to the income tax department, the binding nature of the scheme cannot be challenged during its implementation, as it attains statutory force.

EID Parry India's v. CIT
23 Taxmann.com 348 · 2012 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Unabsorbed depreciation of an amalgamating company cannot be added to the written down value of assets in the hands of the amalgamated company. The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition against a High Court decision on this point, implicitly upholding this proposition.

Premji Khimraj Shah v. ITO
118 ITR 216 · 1979 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Succession to business requires the successor to take over the whole or substantially the whole of the predecessor's business and continue it. A successor to only a part of the business, resulting from disintegration, is not considered a successor to the original business.

Judgments citing demerger

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

section 47 or section 170 or to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated ... prescribed rates as if the succession or the amalgamation or the demerger, as the case may be, had not taken place, and such deduction shall be apportioned between the predecessor and the successor, or the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company, or the demerged company and the resulting company

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4925/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432, 3433 & 3434/Del/2018 ITA Nos.4923, 4924 & 4925/Del/2018 demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

ITA 4924/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

Gagan' brand which was retained by ACL is allowable as deduction. This retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant is not disputed ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4923/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432, 3433 & 3434/Del/2018 ITA Nos.4923, 4924 & 4925/Del/2018 demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3434/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432, 3433 & 3434/Del/2018 ITA Nos.4923, 4924 & 4925/Del/2018 demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3433/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432, 3433 & 3434/Del/2018 ITA Nos.4923, 4924 & 4925/Del/2018 demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3432/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

retention of Brand by ACL was part of the scheme of 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3432, 3433 & 3434/Del/2018 ITA Nos.4923, 4924 & 4925/Del/2018 demerger as is evident from the petitions filed by the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that 'Gagan' brand was used by the appellant ... this issue wherein it was held that 'edible oil undertaking' and 'edible oil brands' constituted two separate components of the demerger plan approved by the Hon'ble High Court and also taking note of the fact that the rate of Royalty on edible oil brands as also the fact that

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Satyapal group of cases. Consequent thereto, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Respondent Assessee, an entity created on demerger of rubber thread unit of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (DSL). The Assessee, in the return filed in response to the notice, declared a loss in each

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3084/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

contribution. As per provisions of section 80IA(12) of the Act, if the undertaking is transferred and said transfer is not by amalgamation or demerger, the benefit shall be available to the transferee undertaking. Unlike section 80IA(4)(v) of the Act, which stipulates conditions on formation of assessee being ... concept of deduction and as per said circular, if an undertaking is transferred to another undertaking other than by way of amalgamation and demerger and in other cases, the transferee undertaking shall be eligible for deduction for remaining unexpired period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ground

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3081/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

contribution. As per provisions of section 80IA(12) of the Act, if the undertaking is transferred and said transfer is not by amalgamation or demerger, the benefit shall be available to the transferee undertaking. Unlike section 80IA(4)(v) of the Act, which stipulates conditions on formation of assessee being ... concept of deduction and as per said circular, if an undertaking is transferred to another undertaking other than by way of amalgamation and demerger and in other cases, the transferee undertaking shall be eligible for deduction for remaining unexpired period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ground

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2552/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhao VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose
Section 143(3)Section 14A

claim of crystallization prior period expenses?" 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company formed pursuant to the demerger of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Assessment Year 2016-2017 Electricity Board ('MSEB') and is engaged in the activity of transmission of electricity in the State

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2093/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhao VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose
Section 143(3)Section 14A

claim of crystallization prior period expenses?" 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company formed pursuant to the demerger of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Assessment Year 2016-2017 Electricity Board ('MSEB') and is engaged in the activity of transmission of electricity in the State

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2803/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

from a shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956); (v) any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company).] Explanation

Sh. Atul Bansal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2737/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54B

from a shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956); (v) any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company).] Explanation