TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A NO.1008/2017 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )A No.1371/Bang/2010. The ITAT by its order dated 05.07.2017 partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment order in the hands of the amalgamated Company namely the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 3. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: "(a) That the Hon'ble Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance on Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore Vs Intel Technology India (P) Ltd., [2015] 57 taxmann.com 159 (Karnataka), Spice Entertainment Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 2012 (280) ELT 43 (Del.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC), in support of his contention. 5. Shri K V Aravind, for the Revenue sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion before the DRP. The ITAT allowing the appeal in part has directed to frame the assessment order in the name of amalgamated company. Thus, the fact remains that despite being brought to the notice, the Assessing Officer has passed the order in the name of amalgamating Company. 8. In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., (supra), it is held that there is a value which the Court must abide by in promoting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|