After our amalgamation the Assessing Officer has taxed us under section 41(1) on a trading liability that had been allowed as a deduction to the company we absorbed. Can the allowance given to a company that no longer exists be taxed in our hands?
No. The Supreme Court held that section 41(1) applies only to the assessee to whom the allowance or deduction was made, and that in order to attract it the identity of the assessee in the previous year and the subsequent year must be the same; if there is any change in the identity of the assessee there is no liability under section 41. On amalgamation the transferor company loses its entity and its corporate existence ceases with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective, so the amalgamated company is a separate entity and a different assessee, and the allowance made to the transferor cannot be treated as its income.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Judgment of the Court delivered by Singh, J. (the raw report names only 'SINGH, J.'; the indiankanoon plain-document view, which was a summarised rendering, listed the bench as K.N. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJ.)) on 1990-09-04, reported as Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1976, from the judgment and order dated 15 April 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T. Reference No. 14 of 1972; assessment year 1965-66. It bears on section 41(1), section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the foundation stone of the whole non-existent-entity line in Indian tax procedure, and it is worth having in its own right rather than only through the later procedural cases. The Court did not merely say the amalgamating company ceases to exist for the purposes of section 41(1); it corrected the High Court's contrary theory head-on, holding that the view that on amalgamation 'there is no complete destruction of corporate personality of the transferor company instead there is a blending of the corporate personality of one with another corporate body' is not sustainable in law. The two working propositions to take from it are: (a) the true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme of merger, so read the scheme; and (b) subject to that, when two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor loses its entity, and while the respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme, the corporate entity of the transferor ceases to exist from the date the amalgamation is made effective. That second proposition is what later cases build on when they hold an assessment framed on an amalgamating company to be a nullity. Note the limit of the actual decision: it is a decision on section 41(1) and on the identity of the assessee, not a decision on the validity of a notice or an assessment order, and it long predates section 170(2A) and section 292B jurisprudence. It also decides nothing about whether a scheme is an 'amalgamation' for the purposes of section 2(1B) of the Act — the Court was construing a scheme sanctioned under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellant, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, was a limited company manufacturing and selling sugar and machinery for sugar mills. Another company, the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation, also manufactured machinery parts for sugar mills. On 28 September 1962, under orders of the High Court, the Indian Sugar Company was amalgamated with the appellant; under the scheme it stood dissolved on 29 October 1962 and ceased to be in existence thereafter, and the appellant, the transferee, was a subsidiary of the transferor. Before the amalgamation the Indian Sugar Company had been allowed expenditure of Rs 58,735 on accrual basis in an earlier assessment and had shown that amount as a trading liability; the liability was taken over by the appellant. For assessment year 1965-66 the appellant claimed that the amount was not chargeable under section 41(1) because the expenditure had been allowed to a different entity. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed him. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the identity of the amalgamating company was lost and it was no longer in existence. On the Department's application the Tribunal referred the question to the High Court, which answered it in favour of the Revenue, holding that on amalgamation neither company ceased to exist and both continued their entities in a blended form, and that the amalgamated company was the successor in interest. The assessee's application for a certificate under section 261 was dismissed and it came to the Supreme Court by special leave.
The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court set aside, and the question answered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of law and that the appellant was therefore not liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs 58,735 under section 41(1). The High Court was in error in holding that after amalgamation the transferor company did not become non-existent but continued its entity in a blended form, and its view that there is no complete destruction of the corporate personality of the transferor company is not sustainable in law. There was no order as to costs.
The Court began with the text of section 41(1) and held that although the section is enacted for charging tax on profits made by an assessee, it applies to the assessee to whom the trading liability may have been allowed in the previous year; if that assessee ceases to be in existence, or the assessee is changed on account of death, the income received in a later year cannot be treated as income received by the assessee. In order to attract section 41(1) for enforcing tax liability, the identity of the assessee in the previous year and the subsequent year must be the same, and if there is any change in the identity of the assessee there is no tax liability under section 41. The Court applied its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Hukumchand Mohanlal, 82 ITR 624, where a widow who succeeded to her husband's business was held not chargeable under section 41(1) on a refund received, because the assessee sought to be taxed was not the assessee contemplated by the section. Turning to the effect of amalgamation, the Court described amalgamation as a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one, effected either by transfer of undertakings to a new company or by transfer to an existing company, and held that when two companies are merged and so joined as to form a third company, or one is absorbed into or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity. It applied its decision in General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader, 1986 (2) SCC 656, where it had held that under an order of amalgamation made on the basis of a High Court order the transferor company ceased to be in existence in the eye of law and effaced itself for all practical purposes, so that the two companies could not be treated as partners or jointly liable in respect of their liabilities and assets. Applying that to the facts, the Tribunal had rightly held the appellant to be a separate entity and a different assessee, so that the allowance made to the Indian Sugar Company could not be held to be the income of the amalgamated company for the purposes of section 41(1). The Court added that the true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme of merger, but that there cannot be any doubt that when two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business, and that while their respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation, the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective.
the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that section 41(1) applies only to the assessee to whom the allowance or deduction was made, and that in order to attract it the identity of the assessee in the previous year and the subsequent year must be the same; if there is any change in the identity of the assessee there is no liability under section 41. On amalgamation the transferor company loses its entity and its corporate existence ceases with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective, so the amalgamated company is a separate entity and a different assessee, and the allowance made to the transferor cannot be treated as its income. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Judgment of the Court delivered by Singh, J. (the raw report names only 'SINGH, J.'; the indiankanoon plain-document view, which was a summarised rendering, listed the bench as K.N. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJ.)) and bears on section 41(1), section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1976, from the judgment and order dated 15 April 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T. Reference No. 14 of 1972; assessment year 1965-66. This is the foundation stone of the whole non-existent-entity line in Indian tax procedure, and it is worth having in its own right rather than only through the later procedural cases. The Court did not merely say the amalgamating company ceases to exist for the purposes of section 41(1); it corrected the High Court's contrary theory head-on, holding that the view that on amalgamation 'there is no complete destruction of corporate personality of the transferor company instead there is a blending of the corporate personality of one with another corporate body' is not sustainable in law. The two working propositions to take from it are: (a) the true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme of merger, so read the scheme; and (b) subject to that, when two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor loses its entity, and while the respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme, the corporate entity of the transferor ceases to exist from the date the amalgamation is made effective. That second proposition is what later cases build on when they hold an assessment framed on an amalgamating company to be a nullity. Note the limit of the actual decision: it is a decision on section 41(1) and on the identity of the assessee, not a decision on the validity of a notice or an assessment order, and it long predates section 170(2A) and section 292B jurisprudence. It also decides nothing about whether a scheme is an 'amalgamation' for the purposes of section 2(1B) of the Act — the Court was construing a scheme sanctioned under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Where the department seeks to tax a remission or cessation under section 41(1) in the hands of an amalgamated company, put identity of assessee at the front of the argument: the allowance must have been made to the same assessee that is now sought to be charged.
The appellant, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, was a limited company manufacturing and selling sugar and machinery for sugar mills. Another company, the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation, also manufactured machinery parts for sugar mills. On 28 September 1962, under orders of the High Court, the Indian Sugar Company was amalgamated with the appellant; under the scheme it stood dissolved on 29 October 1962 and ceased to be in existence thereafter, and the appellant, the transferee, was a subsidiary of the transferor. Before the amalgamation the Indian Sugar Company had been allowed expenditure of Rs 58,735 on accrual basis in an earlier assessment and had shown that amount as a trading liability; the liability was taken over by the appellant. For assessment year 1965-66 the appellant claimed that the amount was not chargeable under section 41(1) because the expenditure had been allowed to a different entity. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed him. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the identity of the amalgamating company was lost and it was no longer in existence. On the Department's application the Tribunal referred the question to the High Court, which answered it in favour of the Revenue, holding that on amalgamation neither company ceased to exist and both continued their entities in a blended form, and that the amalgamated company was the successor in interest. The assessee's application for a certificate under section 261 was dismissed and it came to the Supreme Court by special leave. The matter was decided on 1990-09-04 by the Supreme Court (Judgment of the Court delivered by Singh, J. (the raw report names only 'SINGH, J.'; the indiankanoon plain-document view, which was a summarised rendering, listed the bench as K.N. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJ.)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court set aside, and the question answered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of law and that the appellant was therefore not liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs 58,735 under section 41(1). The High Court was in error in holding that after amalgamation the transferor company did not become non-existent but continued its entity in a blended form, and its view that there is no complete destruction of the corporate personality of the transferor company is not sustainable in law. There was no order as to costs.
The Court began with the text of section 41(1) and held that although the section is enacted for charging tax on profits made by an assessee, it applies to the assessee to whom the trading liability may have been allowed in the previous year; if that assessee ceases to be in existence, or the assessee is changed on account of death, the income received in a later year cannot be treated as income received by the assessee. In order to attract section 41(1) for enforcing tax liability, the identity of the assessee in the previous year and the subsequent year must be the same, and if there is any change in the identity of the assessee there is no tax liability under section 41. The Court applied its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Hukumchand Mohanlal, 82 ITR 624, where a widow who succeeded to her husband's business was held not chargeable under section 41(1) on a refund received, because the assessee sought to be taxed was not the assessee contemplated by the section. Turning to the effect of amalgamation, the Court described amalgamation as a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one, effected either by transfer of undertakings to a new company or by transfer to an existing company, and held that when two companies are merged and so joined as to form a third company, or one is absorbed into or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity. It applied its decision in General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader, 1986 (2) SCC 656, where it had held that under an order of amalgamation made on the basis of a High Court order the transferor company ceased to be in existence in the eye of law and effaced itself for all practical purposes, so that the two companies could not be treated as partners or jointly liable in respect of their liabilities and assets. Applying that to the facts, the Tribunal had rightly held the appellant to be a separate entity and a different assessee, so that the allowance made to the Indian Sugar Company could not be held to be the income of the amalgamated company for the purposes of section 41(1). The Court added that the true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme of merger, but that there cannot be any doubt that when two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business, and that while their respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation, the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1990-09-04 and is reported as Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1976, from the judgment and order dated 15 April 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T. Reference No. 14 of 1972; assessment year 1965-66. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 41(1), section 2(1B), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court set aside, and the question answered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of law and that the appellant was therefore not liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs 58,735 under section 41(1). The High Court was in error in holding that after amalgamation the transferor company did not become non-existent but continued its entity in a blended form, and its view that there is no complete destruction of the corporate personality of the transferor company is not sustainable in law. There was no order as to costs. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 41(1), section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Judgment of the Court delivered by Singh, J. (the raw report names only 'SINGH, J.'; the indiankanoon plain-document view, which was a summarised rendering, listed the bench as K.N. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJ.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Produce the scheme of amalgamation and the date from which it was made effective. The Court said the true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme. Distinguish the taking over of a liability under the scheme from the taxability of its remission. The transferee here had undertaken to meet the transferor's liabilities and still succeeded. Do not stretch this decision into a general rule that every assessment on an amalgamated company is void; that question is governed by the later line on notices and assessment orders, and by section 292B, which this library carries separately. For any assessment year from 1 April 2022, check section 170(2A) before relying on cessation of existence, because a proceeding made or initiated during the pendency of the succession is now deemed to have been made on the successor. Keep company-law and tax vocabulary apart: this decision construes a scheme sanctioned under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, and says nothing about whether the transaction satisfies section 2(1B) of the Income-tax Act.
Still good law. The proposition that the transferor company ceases to exist on amalgamation has been applied repeatedly since, and this pass read the Supreme Court's own later treatment of that line in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (25 July 2019), which is already in this library. I did NOT run a systematic later-treatment search on this judgment, and no case doubting or distinguishing it was located because none was looked for; that check is outstanding and is recorded as outstanding rather than certified. Two limits should be read with the label. First, the decision is on section 41(1) and identity of assessee, not on the validity of a notice or an assessment order; the later procedural line, including Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (5 April 2022), turns on facts the Court there found peculiar and is carried separately in this library. Second, for any proceeding made or initiated during the pendency of a succession on or after 1 April 2022, section 170(2A) now deems the proceeding to have been made or initiated on the successor, which changes the procedural consequence without touching the identity-of-assessee reasoning in this judgment. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment was read in full this pass. The plain document URL https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1520894/ returned a model-written summary rather than the judgment, exactly the failure mode the brief warns about, so the raw text was taken from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1520894/?type=print, which returned what is plainly the raw report — counsel's names, the Civil Appeal number, optical-recognition artefacts such as 'Engi- neering' and '1(1).' where the report reproduces section 41(1), and the closing line 'V.P.R Appeal allowed.' The operative sentence was then corroborated independently through https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1520894/?formInput=%22the%20corporate%20entity%20of%20the%20transferor%20company%20ceases%20to%20exist%22, which returned the same words. STRUCTURE, established by transcribing the whole judgment rather than by asking about it: the report has NO numbered paragraphs at all — it runs from the appellate jurisdiction line and counsel block, through the judgment delivered by SINGH, J., to the closing disposal, without paragraph numbers — so no paragraph locator is or can be given for any passage in this entry, and any citation of this judgment by paragraph number should be treated as suspect. The raw report names only 'SINGH, J.' as delivering the judgment of the Court; the bench of K.N. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJ. is taken from the plain-document view, which was the summarised rendering, and is therefore flagged rather than asserted. The raw report does not print a law-report citation, so none is given. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court set aside, and the question answered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of law and that the appellant was therefore not liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs 58,735 under section 41(1). The High Court was in error in holding that after amalgamation the transferor company did not become non-existent but continued its entity in a blended form, and its view that there is no complete destruction of the corporate personality of the transferor company is not sustainable in law. There was no order as to costs.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The lender wrote off the principal of a loan I used to buy machinery. Is that taxable?
Old sundry creditors are still in my balance sheet. Can the AO tax them as ceased liabilities?
The officer disallowed all my sub-contract payments because the sub-contractors did not turn up to summons. Can the whole payment be added back when the work was plainly done?
Old creditor balances have been sitting in my books for twenty years and nobody has sued. If I move them to reserves, does section 41(1) tax them?