Section 72A(1)

Section 72A(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 72A(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 10(3), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) — the three-fourths test is applied to each amalgamating company separately, and Rule 9C bites only at the end of four years ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Assessing Officer has denied our section 72A set-off in the very first year after the merger because we have not yet reached fifty per cent of installed capacity and have not filed Form No. 62. Can he do that before the four years are up?
  No. The Tribunal held that Rule 9C(a) requires the fifty per cent production level to be achieved before the END of four years from the date of amalgamation, so it may be achieved in the first, second, third or fourth year, and the Assessing Officer of an earlier year is not required — and by implication not entitled — to examine that condition at that stage. The Form No. 62 certificate under Rule 9C(b) is due for the first time only for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the prescribed production level is achieved, so a demand for it before that is premature. Separately, the Tribunal held that the three-fourths of book value test in section 72A(2)(b)(i) is applied qua the particular amalgamating company whose loss is being claimed, and that where two companies amalgamate in the same year the disposals of the second company's assets cannot be aggregated with the first's.
• Statutory position — s.72A(6B): inserted by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 1 April 2026, an inherited business loss runs only eight assessment years from the year it was first computed for the original predecessor entity, for any reorganisation effected on or after 1 April 2025 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We are planning an amalgamation this year and the target has losses that are already several years old. Does the eight-year clock restart in our hands?
  No — not for an amalgamation or business reorganisation effected on or after 1 April 2025. Sub-section (6B) of section 72A provides that where any amalgamation or business reorganisation is effected on or after that date, any loss forming part of the accumulated loss of the predecessor entity under sub-section (1), (6) or (6A) which is deemed to be the loss of the successor entity shall be carried forward in the successor's hands for not more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which such loss was first computed for the original predecessor entity. "Original predecessor entity" is defined in s.72A(7)(ab) as the predecessor entity in respect of the FIRST amalgamation under sub-section (1) or the first business reorganisation under sub-section (6) or (6A). Sub-section (6B) and the definition in s.72A(7)(ab) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2025 (Act No. 7 of 2025) with effect from 1 April 2026, so the provision first governs assessment year 2026-27 — which is the first assessment year in which a reorganisation effected on or after 1 April 2025 can fall, the two dates dovetailing exactly.
• Statutory position — s.2(1B): the three conditions of an "amalgamation", and why a scheme sanctioned by a court or tribunal does not by itself produce one CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The NCLT has sanctioned our scheme and the order calls it an amalgamation. The Assessing Officer says it is not an amalgamation for income-tax and has refused section 47 and section 72A. Can he do that?
  Yes, he can. "Amalgamation" for the Income-tax Act is defined by s.2(1B) and by nothing else: the merger must be in such a manner that all the property and all the liabilities of the amalgamating company become those of the amalgamated company, and that shareholders holding not less than three-fourths in value of the shares of the amalgamating company — leaving out shares already held by the amalgamated company, its nominee or its subsidiary — become shareholders of the amalgamated company. A tribunal or court order sanctioning a scheme is what makes the merger effective as a matter of company law; it is not a finding that these three conditions are satisfied, and s.2(1B) nowhere requires such an order.
• Statutory position — s.72A(1) and s.72A(7)(aa): which amalgamations carry accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation across, and the closed definition of "industrial undertaking" CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We amalgamated a loss-making service company into ours. The Assessing Officer says section 72A does not apply at all because there is no industrial undertaking. Is that right, and what does the section actually cover?
  Section 72A(1) does not apply to every amalgamation. It applies to an amalgamation of (a) a company owning an industrial undertaking or a ship or a hotel with another company, (b) a banking company within s.5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with a specified bank, (c) one or more public sector companies with one or more public sector companies, or (d) an erstwhile public sector company with one or more companies where the share purchase agreement entered into under strategic disinvestment restricted immediate amalgamation and the amalgamation is carried out within five years from the end of the previous year in which that restriction ends. "Industrial undertaking" is exhaustively defined in s.72A(7)(aa) as an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods, the manufacture of computer software, the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, the business of providing telecommunication services (basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network of trunking, broadband network and internet services), mining, or the construction of ships, aircrafts or rail systems.
• Statutory position — s.72A(2), s.72A(3) and Rule 9C: the five conditions, the fifty per cent production test, the Form No. 62 certificate and the year the set-off is taken back CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We took over an amalgamating company's brought-forward losses. What exactly must we satisfy under section 72A(2) and Rule 9C, and if we fail, in which year does the department take the set-off back?
  Section 72A(2) imposes five conditions in two groups. The amalgamating company must (a)(i) have been engaged in the business in which the accumulated loss occurred or depreciation remains unabsorbed for three or more years, and (a)(ii) have held continuously, as on the date of the amalgamation, at least three-fourths of the book value of fixed assets held by it two years prior to that date. The amalgamated company must (b)(i) hold continuously for a minimum of five years from the date of amalgamation at least three-fourths of the book value of the fixed assets of the amalgamating company acquired in the scheme, (b)(ii) continue the business of the amalgamating company for a minimum of five years from that date, and (b)(iii) fulfil the conditions prescribed by Rule 9C — achieving at least fifty per cent of the installed capacity of the amalgamating company's industrial undertaking before the end of four years from the date of amalgamation and maintaining it to the end of five years, and furnishing to the Assessing Officer a certificate in Form No. 62 verified by an accountant. If any condition in sub-section (2) is not complied with, s.72A(3) deems the set-off or depreciation allowance already made in any previous year to be the income of the amalgamated company chargeable to tax for the year in which the condition is not complied with.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.