← 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

Universal Trading Company Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115JSection 154Section 237Section 244ASection 250

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 filed pointing out that distribution dividend tax was already paid which, by virtue of such merger of companies ... 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi, Cr Building vs. Indus Towers Limited, Gurgram

ITA 2805/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

liability was within the purview of income tax department and that the department would be free to pursue either transferor company or transferee company notwithstanding the sanction of the Court. The scheme per se was sanctioned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to be proceeded, with liberty given ... questioned or challenged at the time of implementation of the scheme as the scheme had attained statutory force not only between the transferor or transferee company but also between statutory authorities to whom notices were issued by the Court. Needless to mention that every scheme of arrangement and amalgamation must

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

liability was within the purview of income tax department and that the department would be free to pursue either transferor company or transferee company notwithstanding the sanction of the Court. The scheme per se was sanctioned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to be proceeded, with liberty given ... questioned or challenged at the time of implementation of the scheme as the scheme had attained statutory force not only between the transferor or transferee company but also between statutory authorities to whom notices were issued by the Court. Needless to mention that every scheme of arrangement and amalgamation must

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

accounts of the transferor company. The Assessing Officer observed that it may be true that goodwill is to be recognized in the books of transferee company as per prescribed accounting standard. However, this accounting treatment itself does not entitle the assessee to claim depreciation in its books of account

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i. e., MIPL) 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 due, as to whether ... decision in Marshall and 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." 8.2. The above extracts would show as stated supra that two facts

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5423/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

approval of the scheme by this Hon'ble Court may not deter the Income Tax Authority to scrutinize the tax return filed by the transferee Company after giving effect to the scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Authority is binding on the petitioner Company” 45. The ld. AR further

Srs International Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3635/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3626/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F” : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3625/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3624/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F” : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3623/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “F” : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3622/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

proves that there was no case to doubt the sale consideration shown in the agreement as submitted by the assessee, 70% share in the transferee company is held by the nearest family members of the partners i.e. son, wife or father and therefore it cannot be believed that sale consideration

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

followed and complied with. During the period, the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e. the transferor company and 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 ... from the transfer date, the transferor company (subsidiary company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the transferee company (holding company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the Courts have not only sanctioned the scheme in this case

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

followed and complied with. During the period, the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e. the transferor company and 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 ... from the transfer date, the transferor company (subsidiary company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the transferee company (holding company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the Courts have not only sanctioned the scheme in this case