← All Phrases

“transferee company”

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
58
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
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.

Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO
223 ITR 809 · 1997 · Supreme Court
29
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
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.

CIT v. Intel Techno India P. Ltd.
57 Taxmann.com 159 · 2015 · High Court
15
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

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

become shareholders in the same transferor companies would become shareholders in the same transferor companies would become shareholders in the same ratio in the transferee company. On the other hand, in the ratio in the transferee company. On the other hand, in the ratio in the transferee company ... assets and lia 14.All assets and liabilities of the transferor companies had bilities of the transferor companies had passed on, in totality, to the transferee company, thus, passed on, in totality, to the transferee company, thus, passed on, in totality, to the transferee company, thus, indicating that

Smt . Veena Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1702/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

amalgamation of ‘Proaim Enterprises (formerly Shreenath Commercial and Finance Limited), Axon Ventures Limited, Rockon Enterprises (the transferor companies') Limited with ‘Banas Finance Limited’ ('the transferee company') with appointed date fixed as 01/04/2018 and direction for dissolving the transferor companies without winding up. Further, as per Newspaper clipping in Financial Express

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 8301/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Circle-5(2), Management India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi New Delhi Room No. Ce-05, Import Building-2, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc6885B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

para 5.4 which still hold the field. It was submitted that the question still required to be determined if the assessee is a transferee company and for which the agreement between DIAL and Celebi Hava Servisi is required to be examined. He also submitted that the Articles of Association

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

scheme for amalgamation sanctioned by the Gujarat High Court by order dated 20th June 2000. In the return of income filed by the transferee company, a detailed note to this effect was 26 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed pointing out that distribution dividend ... followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

scheme for amalgamation sanctioned by the Gujarat High Court by order dated 20th June 2000. In the return of income filed by the transferee company, a detailed note to this effect was 26 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed pointing out that distribution dividend ... followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

scheme for amalgamation sanctioned by the Gujarat High Court by order dated 20th June 2000. In the return of income filed by the transferee company, a detailed note to this effect was 26 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed pointing out that distribution dividend ... followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

scheme for amalgamation sanctioned by the Gujarat High Court by order dated 20th June 2000. In the return of income filed by the transferee company, a detailed note to this effect was 26 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed pointing out that distribution dividend ... followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

subsidiary company or vice versa or in the scheme of amalgamation, the actual cost of the block of assets in the case of transferee company shall be the written down value of the block of assets as in the case of transferor company for the immediately preceding previous year

Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4582/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4582/Del/2018 , A.Y. 2012-13 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Erstwhile Known As Jaypee Infra Circle-13(2), Ventures) New Delhi (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability) Sector 128, Noida- 201304, Up Pan : Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

first year of its operations and pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation between M/s. Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (Transferor Company) and the assessee company (Transferee Company) effective from 1.4.2011, all assets and liabilities of M/s. Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. were taken over by the assessee company. The assessee filed

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures, Noida

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4435/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4582/Del/2018 , A.Y. 2012-13 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Erstwhile Known As Jaypee Infra Circle-13(2), Ventures) New Delhi (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability) Sector 128, Noida- 201304, Up Pan : Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

first year of its operations and pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation between M/s. Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (Transferor Company) and the assessee company (Transferee Company) effective from 1.4.2011, all assets and liabilities of M/s. Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. were taken over by the assessee company. The assessee filed

ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi vs. Bsbk Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 50B

most relevant clauses are as under: “(i) The Scheme will integrate the BSBK EPC business and MBL. EPC Business of the Transferor Companies in Transferee Company and, as a result, create an operating entity with significant operational and financial strength comprising the EPC business of all the companies and will ... shareholder value of the Companies involved; (ii) The transfer will enable consolidation and integration of the PC operations of the Transferor companies and Transferee Company and enable the Transferee Company to offer end to end solutions from one entity as opposed to multiple entities; (iii) Consolidate and enhance both Technical

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

charge be and stand transferred to and vest in and/ or deemed to be transferred to and vested in and be available to the Transferee Company so as to become licenses, permits, entitlements, quotas, approvals, permissions, registrations, incentives, sales tax deferrals, exemptions and benefits, subsidies, concessions, grants, rights, claims, leases ... mining leases, prospecting licenses, tenancy rights, liberties, special status and other benefits or privileges of the Transferee Company and shall remain valid, effective and enforceable on the same terms and conditions.” 95. We would be sitting on the judgment and wisdom of the Hon’ble Courts if we were

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

charge be and stand transferred to and vest in and/ or deemed to be transferred to and vested in and be available to the Transferee Company so as to become licenses, permits, entitlements, quotas, approvals, permissions, registrations, incentives, sales tax deferrals, exemptions and benefits, subsidies, concessions, grants, rights, claims, leases ... mining leases, prospecting licenses, tenancy rights, liberties, special status and other benefits or privileges of the Transferee Company and shall remain valid, effective and enforceable on the same terms and conditions.” 95. We would be sitting on the judgment and wisdom of the Hon’ble Courts if we were

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 46/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) BJN Holdings Ltd. treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order- and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were ... decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: "an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company." 5. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 45/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) BJN Holdings Ltd. treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order- and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were ... decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: "an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company." 5. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 44/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) BJN Holdings Ltd. treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order- and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were ... decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: "an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company." 5. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 43/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) BJN Holdings Ltd. treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order- and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were ... decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: "an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company." 5. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 42/DEL/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) BJN Holdings Ltd. treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order- and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were ... decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: "an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company." 5. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death

Mita Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT - CC - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
Section 269TSection 271E

been levied by the Range-head. However, while levying this penalty u/s. 271E, the Range-head had only considered the violation made by the transferee company and not by the transferorfamalgamating companies prior to the amalgamation. The instant case is only of enlargement of the scope of levy of penalty ... this year should be subjected to levy of penalty u/s.271E. If the loans were bogus in those years in the hands of those transferee companies, then it is unfathomable as to how in the year in which the loans have been converted into convertible debentures which is also a kind

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Taxpayer Unit) - 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed

ITA 136/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr5055K Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms Moksha Mehta, Cas, Ars' Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR

shareholders of preference share capital other than the holding company and holding company only holds along with its nominees, 100 % equity shares of the transferee company. Therefore, according to us the conditions of section 47 (iv) of the act are not satisfied and if any capital gain or loss arising