Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.89 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Limited on 18 June, 2012 cites

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs C.I.T., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, ... on 4 September, 1990

12. Extending the said decision to sub clause (iii) of Section 10B(2) of the Act, it is clear that as a result of the merger of the subsidiary company with the holding company, there is no new business formed by transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any business, as pointed out by the Apex Court that "strictly amalgamation does not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of the other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition", it is no doubt true as per the law laid down by the Apex Court that on merger, the amalgamating company looses its entity. But, then by such merger there is no formation of new business to disqualify the claim of the assesee for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. As already pointed out and rightly relied on by the assessee, the CBDT circular dated 13.12.1963, referred the benefit of Section 84 as available to successor for remaining years. In the said circular, the Board pointed out that the benefit under Section 84 is attached to the undertaking and not to the owner and the successor would be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period of five years provided the undertaking is taken over as a running concern and continues its business as an EOU.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 210 - K N Singh - Full Document
1