Which cases are most cited on transferee company?

Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (247 CTR 500) — 114 citing judgments; Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (41 Taxmann.com 120) — 58 citing judgments; CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (87 Taxmann.com 82) — 38 citing judgments; Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO (223 ITR 809) — 29 citing judgments; Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT (420 ITR 339) — 21 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss transferee company?

BharatTax indexes 236 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss transferee company (Section 2(1B)).

← All Phrases

“transferee company”

Q: What is the leading case on transferee company?

Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (247 CTR 500) is the decision most relied on for transferee company, cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Mergers & RestructuringSection 2(1B)Section 2(1B)236 judgments

The decision most relied on for transferee company is Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (247 CTR 500), cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on transferee company

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.

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

41 Taxmann.com 120 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

87 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court

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.

Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO

223 ITR 809 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

In cases of amalgamation, the computation of income should be done with reference to periods before and after the appointed day, not the date of court sanction. Amalgamating companies cease to exist in law upon amalgamation.

Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT

420 ITR 339 · 2020 · Supreme Court

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.

CIT v. Intel Techno India P. Ltd.

57 Taxmann.com 159 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment framed in the name of a company that no longer exists due to amalgamation is a nullity and cannot be cured by Section 292B. The assessment proceedings are void if notice is not issued to the transferee company.

Judgments citing transferee company

Aptara Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115Section 115QSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that there is an amalgamation in the nature of merger with MLPL (Transferor company) and Assessee-ATPL (Transferee company). Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 19.09.2014 has sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation effective from 01.04.2014 (Appointed date) u/s.391 ... said to be towards Goodwill amounting to Rs.5,97,20,000/- and this Goodwill has been shown as Intangible asset in the books of Transferee company and depreciation @ 25% has been claimed thereon. Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to state that why the difference amount has not been reduced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

than the net assets and the differential amount of Rs. 8,34,77,96,858 is recorded as Goodwill in the books of assessee (transferee company). 6 Lighthouse Learning Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 8. During FY 2019-20, the assessee had claimed depreciation on Goodwill ... goodwill was recorded by mere book entries and in its orders had compared total of depreciation on intangible assets held by the transferor company (+) transferee company before the amalgamation with the depreciation claimed by the assessee after amalgamation. 10. In this regard, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had dealt

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

April 2012. The terms of the approved scheme provided that all liabilities and duties of the transferor company shall stand transferred to the transferee company without any further act or deed. On the scheme coming into effect, the transferor was to stand dissolved without winding up. The scheme stipulated that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5960/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Shriram Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

ITA 2043/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2043/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shriram Finance Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of [Since Shriram City Union Finance Income Tax – 3, Limited Amalgamated With Shriram Chennai. Transport Finance Co. Limited & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Limited], Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4

wherein liberty was given to the Income tax Department to take out appropriate proceedings for recovery of any tax statutorily due from transferor or transferee company or any other person liable to pay such tax due, the scheme of arrangement as approved by NCLT was not be interfered with

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)

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 as such there were ... 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 under rule

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

terms of the BTA and observe that the net consideration of Rs.110,03,66,310/- was mutually agreed upon between the assessee and the transferee company on the basis of revaluation of the assets and liabilities. As evident from Annexure–l to the BTA, the aggregate value of assets transferred

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

salient features of the arrangement are as under:- 3 i. Erstwhile Mahle is the transferor company; ii. The assessee is the transferee company; iii. All property, rights, interest, liabilities, duties and power of the erstwhile Mahle were to be transferred to and vested in the assessee; iv. Once the scheme ... amalgamation becomes effective, erstwhile Mahle shall stand dissolved. v. Upon the amalgamation scheme becoming effective, name of the transferee company shall be substituted with the name of the transferor company. The scheme of amalgamation was approved without any modifications by the High Court vide order dated 27.05.2008. 4. After

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

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, Telangana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

erred in law and in facts in not granting the TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting ... erred in law and in facts in not granting the TCS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the corresponding transactions are recorded by the successor/transferee company. 19. Ground 19: Arithmetic error in calculation of the total interest and fee payable

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Accounting for Amalgamation, under the purchase method, the transferee company 24 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited accounts for the amalgamation either by incorporating the assets and liabilities at their existing carrying amounts or by allocating the consideration to individual identifiable assets and liabilities of the transferor company

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

Highradius Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 436/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B

acquisition. On further perusal of the financial reports for the three years, we note that there is no impact on the profitability of the transferee company on account of such 14 HighRadius Technologies Private Limited acquisition, as could be seen from the following information extracted from the annual report: Financial ... above information clearly shows that the amalgamation has not impacted in increasing the profitability of the transferee company. Besides, it is also seen that the company has not reported amalgamation as a significant factor affecting its revenue growth or profitability. In view of these, we reject the plea that this