“ demerger ”

CIT v. Micra India (P) Ltd.

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.

231 Taxmann 809 · 2015 · High Court

Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

170 ITD 507 · 2018 · ITAT

8.Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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.

367 ITR 266 · 2014 · High Court

Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

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.

382 ITR 443 · 2016 · High Court

Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT

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

420 ITR 339 · 2020 · Supreme Court

23 Taxmann.com 348 · 2012 · High Court

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

Premji Khimraj Shah v. ITO

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.

118 ITR 216 · 1979 · Reported

ITA 1156/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalincome-Tax Officer, Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), 1, Friends Colony, Sm Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan: Acups 2559 J] (Previously Dcit, Cir. 1(1)(2)) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 80G

accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 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).” Since

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1708/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

amounts or aggregate of the amounts debited to the statement of profit and loss on distribution of non-cash assets to shareholders in a demerger in accordance with Appendix A of the Indian Accounting Standards 10; (d) decreased by all amounts or aggregate of the amounts credited to the statement ... profit and loss on distribution of non-cash assets to shareholders in a demerger in accordance with Appendix A of the Indian Accounting Standards 10: Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply to the amount credited or debited to other comprehensive income under the head

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

application, and consequently, the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, which is attracted only in cases of succession, amalgamation or demerger, cannot be invoked. 36.6 Even otherwise, we find that the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act operates only where depreciation is allowable

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 5715/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

assessee did not furnish financial statements, board resolutions, or any filings before the National Company Law Tribunal evidencing implementation of the alleged demerger scheme or actual conduct of business by the said entity. Relying on these findings, the DR contended that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that Mahip Hospital ... Officer violates the VCU definition under the SEBI framework. 23. The assessee also placed on record a_ schematic representation of the proposed amalgamation and demerger 14 ITA No. 5715, 5676 & 5677/Mum/2025 LICHFL Fund structure to explain the commercial and investment rationale of the transaction. It was demonstrated that the scheme

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Vipul J. Modi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 4188/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the ITAT. a) The appellant claims that the share of M/s ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was not a penny stock when the shares were sold. It was only post take over, the name of the company ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was changed to Ram Minerals & Chemicals Ltd. on 11.07.2014. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant filed a chronology of events, which shows that they were holding shares of Intellivate Capital Ventures Ltd. (“ICVL”) from 2010 and the purchase consideration was

Section 10(38)Section 68

Capital Ventures Ltd. (“ICVL”) from 2010 and the purchase consideration was paid by way of account payee cheques. Subsequently, there was a scheme of demerger, which is approved by the High Court of Bombay in 2014, whereby allotment of ICVL Chemicals Ltd shares was made in the proportion

Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

ITA 920/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

where a firm carrying on a business or profession is succeeded by another firm, the other firm; (iv) where there has been a demerger, the resulting company. ITA No.920/PUN/2025 [A] 6.3.1) Section 41(1) is for cessation of liability. In this case the Assessee has submitted Ledger Accounts duly signed

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Palloni and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed”

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

ITA 1211/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1150/MUM/2025

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1150/MUM/2025

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) the rationale behind introduction of amendments made in Provisions of the Act applicable in relation to amalgamation, demerger and slump sale was explained by the CBDT. As per Paragraph 56.4 (Clause xiii) of the said Circular Section 35DD was inserted to provide for amortisation ... note that Section 35DD provides for deduction of such expenditure in five successive previous years beginning with the previous year in which amalgamation or demerger takes place at one-fifth of the expenditure in each year and reads as under: "35DD.(1)Where an assessee, being an Indian company, incurs

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin