← All Phrases

“resulting company”

Mergers & RestructuringSection 2(41A)Section 2(41A)236 judgments

The decision most relied on for resulting company is Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 792), cited in 158 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on resulting company

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 792 · 1997 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital, such as expenses related to issuing shares or an initial public offering (IPO), is capital expenditure. Such expenses are not allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37, even if they incidentally benefit the business, because they result in an increase in capital.

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.

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT
330 ITR 363 · 2011 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

For Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB, the book profit must reflect the true working results of the company. Capital receipts that are not income cannot be included in book profit, and adjustments based on notes on accounts can be made to arrive at the real profit.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited
223 ITR 112 · 1997 · High Court
64
citing judgments

The issuance of bonus shares by capitalizing profits does not result in an increase in the company's capital employed or an expansion of its profit-making apparatus.

DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution
364 ITR 256 · 2014 · High Court
61
citing judgments

A subsidiary is an independent legal entity, and the mere relationship of holding-subsidiary or control by itself does not result in a Permanent Establishment (PE) for the foreign company in India, whether it be a fixed place PE or a dependent agent PE, even when the subsidiary provides outsourced services.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
87 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) when it arises from a scheme of amalgamation or similar corporate restructuring.

CIT v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
219 ITR 521 · 1996 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

Expenses incurred on amalgamation, legal and professional fees, and contributions to a State Housing Board for worker tenements are considered revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. This is because these expenditures do not result in an enduring benefit and are part of the company's operational costs.

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.

Judgments citing resulting company

Vitp Private Limited (in the Case of Flagship Developers Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Ltd (In The Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Case Of Flagship Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Developers (P) (Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv2672G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Tanmayee Rajkumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

developing and operating Information Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services ("IT/ITES") parks in Special Economic Zone ("SEZ") land. This company has got amalgamated into the resulting company Page 14 of 16 ITA No 572 of 2024 VITP P Ltd after the NCLT amalgamation order. Details: My assesee: Flagship developers ... Existent) PAN of merged company: AAACF9235B NAME and PAN Of resulting company: VITP PVT Ltd:- AACCV2672G The assesee got merged into the resulting company on 3rd February 2017. The intimation for the same was provided to the then Assessing officer with a request that the matters pending in case

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

agreed that the intent of the OpCos was of demerger, it would have been imperative for the OpCos to issue shares of the resulting company on a proportionate basis to the shareholders (being an ineluctable condition to satisfy a transaction as a demerger as per the Act), without which