← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

transferor company (Celina) are wholly owned by Orval Corporate Solutions Private Ltd. (Orval), which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company (the assessee/Samagra) and, therefore, the assessee would not issue any equity shares as consideration for merger. Further, Rs.149.29 crores was invested by Orval in Celina ... equity shares in Transferor Company are wholly owned by Orval Corporate Solutions Private Limited, which in tum is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Transferee Company. Hence the Transferee Company would not issue any equity shares as consideration for merger." Copy of the scheme as mentioned in enclosed

M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1256/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shristi Infrastructure Dcit, Development Corporation Circle 11(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No.X-12 & 3, Block P-7, Chowringhee Vs. Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City, Square, Kolkata700069 Kolkata-700 091 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5074F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surna, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surna, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

created in books during the F.Y. 2006-07 on account of difference between the cost of net assets and the amount paid by the transferee company pursuant to amalgamation of the erstwhile Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. having its registered office at Delhi with Peerless Abasan Finance Ltd. (PAFL ... Finance Limited was changed to Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. The difference between the cost of net assets and the amount paid by the transferee company, in terms of scheme of Amalgamation, was recorded as goodwill, i.e. for Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. 4.1. AO'S CASE

Trimurti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 263

progress whereas in the Amalgamation order, it is seen that inventory of Rs.9,96,36,069/- has been transferred to Transferee company i.e., assessee company. Please explain and show cause why the excess amount of Rs.15,98,547/- should not be added to the total income. Reply: In connection with

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 509/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferee entity. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, namely, the transferee company. Therefore, it is essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment

Mr. Amar Rahman, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1352/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1352/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Amar Rahman Acit बनाम/ 547, Ideal Home Township Corporate Circle-1(1) 12Th Cross, Rajarajeswari Nagar Vs. Chennai. Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560 098. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpr-7258-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) & Dr.L.Natarajan (Ca)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

individual holding 49% shares in M/s. Indo Space A.S. Industrial Park Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Anmol Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.), i.e. transferee-company, acted in the fiduciary capacity to effect the transfer of the said four immovable properties along with industrial buildings through registered document and hence there ... assessee was unsustainable in law as well as on facts. 6. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the acquisition of shares from transferee-company by the assessee, the Managing Director, was incidental and necessary for effecting smooth transfer of the said four immovable properties with Industrial Buildings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2753/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2751/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Copany Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2473/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2472/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2323/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2322/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2321/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

main reason for making the addition by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee company gave cash to the transferee company and the same cash after being converted was received back in the form of sale consideration for sale of BG Power & Gas (P) Ltd. shares. However, from reading ... transferee entities replies to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act; v) During the post search enquiries, statements of directors of transferee companies were recorder under oath u/s 131 of the Act and has confirmed the transaction under dispute it is evident from; vi) Despite the aforesaid

Murari Mohan Moni, Purulia vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Purulia

ITA 832/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Murari Mohan Moni Income Tax Officer, Ward No.13, Munsefdanga Ward 3(3), Purulia, Raghunathpur, Vs. West Bengal-713304 West Bengal-723133 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adqpm3685E Assessee By : Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50C

sale through which the immovable property has been sold for consideration of ₹32 lacs by the assessee along with his son to the transferee company namely M/s Swarnabhumi Developers Limited. If the learned Assessing Officer is satisfied that the sale consideration has been received in cash from the buyer, then

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Buhari Holdings Privae Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

entitled to 46,74,000 shares of Rs.10 each in Kemcos Land Developers P. Ltd. and the basis of allotment of shares in the transferee company (Kemcos Land Developers P. Ltd.) was due to holding of original investment in shares by the appellant company with the transferor company (Transcar India ... convenience and to obtain advantage of economies of large scale, the present scheme is proposed to amalgamate the transferor company (i.e VVPL) with the transferee company (i.e. the assessee). As a result of amalgamation, the assessee, being the transferee company, will increase its assets and liabilities, and, even if there

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Kilpauk

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

that in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), there was a finding of fact that the market worth of the transferee company stood increased post- amalgamation. There is no such finding in this case. In the present case, the agreement specifically mentions that it is a non-compete ... past performance of the company and is not an indeterminate figure contingent upon its future performance. In the present case, both the transferor and transferee company belong to the same group and no fresh goodwill accrued to the transferee company as a result of this acquisition. . Therefore, the depreciation

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

that in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), there was a finding of fact that the market worth of the transferee company stood increased post- amalgamation. There is no such finding in this case. In the present case, the agreement specifically mentions that it is a non-compete ... past performance of the company and is not an indeterminate figure contingent upon its future performance. In the present case, both the transferor and transferee company belong to the same group and no fresh goodwill accrued to the transferee company as a result of this acquisition. . Therefore, the depreciation

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

that in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), there was a finding of fact that the market worth of the transferee company stood increased post- amalgamation. There is no such finding in this case. In the present case, the agreement specifically mentions that it is a non-compete ... past performance of the company and is not an indeterminate figure contingent upon its future performance. In the present case, both the transferor and transferee company belong to the same group and no fresh goodwill accrued to the transferee company as a result of this acquisition. . Therefore, the depreciation

Deepak Pens and Plastics P.Ltd (Amalgamated Company) M/S Jet India P.Ltd, West Bangal vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-31, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1021/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148

request has been made for merger of PAN of M/s Deepak Pens & Plastics (P) Ltd. with M/s Jet (India) Pvt. Ltd., the transferee company. The aforesaid fact clearly reveals that prior to completion of assessment not only the assessee had intimated the fact of merger of M/s Deepak Pens & Plastics