Supreme Court of India
ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD.versusINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 359
- Decided
- 13 April 2026
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Holding
The Court held that under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, accumulated losses of an amalgamating company cannot be set off by the amalgamated company because the Act provides no such provision and the losses fall outside the eight‑year carry‑forward period, rendering the Dalmia Power precedent inapplicable.
Summary
Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. amalgamated with Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., with the scheme approved in 2006 and the appointed date set as 01‑01‑2006. The appellant sought to set off the accumulated losses of the amalgamating company against its own income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, relying on Section 54, Section 12’s eight‑year carry‑forward rule, and Clause 14.2 of the amalgamation scheme, and invoking the Dalmia Power precedent. The respondent argued that the Kerala Act provides no provision for such set‑off, that the losses were incurred beyond the eight‑year period, and that the Dalmia Power case was inapplicable because no notice was given to the State of Kerala under the Companies Act. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Kerala Act, the Companies Act, and the Income‑Tax Act, concluding that the Act does not permit the amalgamated company to claim the predecessor’s losses and that the statutory limitation barred the set‑off. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals, denying any loss set‑off.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 54 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 allows the amalgamated company to set off losses of the amalgamating company.
- Whether the eight‑year carry‑forward limitation under Section 12 of the Kerala Act bars set‑off of losses incurred beyond that period.
- Whether Clause 14.2 of the amalgamation scheme can override the statutory provisions of the Kerala Act.
- Whether the Dalmia Power Ltd. precedent is applicable in the absence of notice to the State of Kerala under the Companies Act, 1956.
- Whether the amalgamated company can be treated as a legal representative for loss set‑off under Section 48 of the Kerala Act.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956s. 391, s. 394, s. 394-A
- Companies Act, 2013s. 230(5)
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 72A
- Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991s. 12, s. 2(20), s. 2(7), s. 3, s. 48, s. 54, s. 60
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether in terms of the provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, the amalgamated company as successor of the amalgamating company shall be entitled to set-off of the losses suffered. Headnotes† Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – ss.12, 54 s.72A – A company named PRP amalgamated with the appellant company – The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned in November 2006 – The appointed date was fixed as 01.01.2006 – There were accumulated losses in the balance sheet of amalgamating company – The issue
Subjects
AmalgamationScheme of amalgamationLoss of amalgamating companySet off of lossess.394A of Companies Act, 1956Set off of accumulated loss
Judgment
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 160 : 2026 INSC 359
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
v.
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
(Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 2012)
13 April 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in terms of the provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income
Tax Act, 1991, the amalgamated company as successor of the
amalgamating company shall be entitled to set-off of the losses
suffered.
Headnotes†
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – ss.12, 54 – Income
Tax, 1961 – s.72A – A company named PRP amalgamated
with the appellant company – The scheme of amalgamation
was sanctioned in November 2006 – The appointed date was
fixed as 01.01.2006 – There were accumulated losses in the
balance sheet of amalgamating company – The issue is, as
to whether the same could be claimed as a set-off against the
income of the amalgamated company – Appellant has relied
only on the clause 14.2 in the scheme of amalgamation –
High Court turned down the claim of the appellants –
Correctness:
Held: The appellant has not been able to refer to any provision
under the Kerala Act in terms of which the losses suffered by
amalgamating company can be set-off against the income of
the amalgamated company – The reliance on clause 14.2 of the
Scheme is rejected – Further, the High Court recorded that the
loss of the amalgamating company pertained to a period beyond
8 years, hence, in terms of s.12 of the Kerala Act the appellant
will not be entitled to any set-off – It is a case wherein the
appellant had lost in all fora – To challenge the aforesaid findings
of fact recorded by the High Court in the impugned order, no
specific ground has been raised in the petitions filed before this
* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 161
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Court – This Court does not find any merit in the present appeals.
[Paras 14, 15]
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – ss.12, 54 – Income
Tax, 1961 – s.72A – Companies Act, 1956 – Whether the
judgment in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s case covers the case of the
appellant:
Held: The facts in the present case are distinguishable – Neither
there is any statutory requirement for issuing notice to the State
Government before any scheme of amalgamation is approved by
the Court under the 1956 Act nor such notice was issued – Hence,
to state that the judgment in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s case covers
the case of the appellant, is misconceived and deserves to be
rejected. [Para 13]
Companies Act, 1956 – s.394-A – Scope of – Discussed:
Held: s.394A of 1956 Act makes it mandatory on the Tribunal to
issue notice in every application filed u/ss. 391 or 394 to the Central
Government and any objections raised are to be considered – s.394
of the aforesaid Act talks about amalgamation of the companies –
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, had issued
a Circular dated 15.01.2014 bearing F.No.2/1/2014 providing that
while responding to the notices issued to the Government u/s.
394-A, the Regional Director shall invite specific comments from
the Income Tax Department within 15 days – If no response is
received from the Income Tax Department during the aforesaid
period, it may be presumed that the Income Tax Department has
no objection to the action proposed u/ss.391 or 394, as the case
may be – It is in the light of the aforesaid provision and the circular
that the comments of the Income Tax Department are mandatory.
[Para12]
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – ss.2(7), 2(20), 3,
48, 54, 60 – Scope of – Discussed. [Paras 9-12]
Case Law Cited
General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader, 1986
INSC 85 : [1986] 2 SCR 607 : (1986) 2 SCC 656; Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT, 1990 INSC 266 : [1990] Supp. 1
162 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCR 332 : (1990) Supp. SCC 675; Singer India Limited v. Chander
Mohan Chadha and Others, 2004 INSC 447 : [2004] 3 Supp. 3
SCR 535 : (2004) 7 SCC 1; CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd, 2019
INSC 815 : [2019] 9 SCR 799 : (2020) 18 SCC 331; Religare
Finvest Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 INSC 819 : [2023] 12
SCR 197 : (2024) 1 SCC 797 – referred to.
Dalmia Power Ltd. and Another v. Assistant Commissioner of
Income-Tax, 2019 INSC 1410 : [2019] 18 SCR 1236 : (2020) 420
ITR 339 – distinguished.
List of Acts
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991; Income Tax, 1961;
Companies Act, 1956; Companies Act, 2013.
List of Keywords
Amalgamation; Scheme of amalgamation; Loss of amalgamating
comapny; Set off of losses; s.394A of Companies Act, 1956; Set
off of accumulated loss.
Case Arising From
C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
7796 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2011 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in OTC No. 3 of 2011.
With
Civil Appeal No. 6617 of 2019, Civil Appeal No(s). 13454 and
13455 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 19865 of 2017.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., M/S. K J John And Co, Amarjit Singh Bedi,
Ms. Surekha Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Sidharth Nair, Harshit
Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., M. T. George, C. K. Sasi, Dr. K K
Geetha, Ms. Meena K Poulose.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 163
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of five appeals.
FACTS OF THE CASES
2. In Civil Appeal No.7796 of 2012 challenge is to the order dated
23.09.2011 passed by the High Court1 in OTC No.3 of 2011 whereby
order dated 22.03.2011 passed in AITA Nos.2/2010 by the Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal2, Addl.
Bench, Ernakulam, was upheld.
2.1 In Civil Appeal No.19865 of 2017 challenge is to the order dated
27.07.2017 passed by the High Court in OTC No.11 of 2013
wherein order dated 30.11.2012 passed in AITA No.1/2011 by
the Tribunal, was upheld.
2.2 In Civil Appeal No.13454 of 2015 challenge is to the order
dated 27.07.2015 passed by the High Court in OTC No.1 of
2015 wherein order dated 19.02.2015 passed in AITA Nos.2 &
3 /2012 by the Tribunal, was upheld.
2.3 In Civil Appeal No.13455 of 2015 challenge is to the order
dated 27.07.2015 passed by the High Court in OTC No.2 of
2015 wherein order dated 19.02.2015 passed in AITA Nos. 2
& 3/2012 by the Tribunal, was upheld.
2.4 In Civil Appeal No.6617 of 2019 challenge is to the order dated
24.05.2019 passed by the High Court in OTC No.1 of 2019
wherein order dated 30.08.2018 passed in AITA Nos.2-4/2016
by the Tribunal, was upheld.
3. All the appeals are being taken up together, as common questions of
fact and law are involved in these appeals. Facts are being noticed
from Civil Appeal No.7796 of 2012.
1 High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
2 Hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’
164 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. A company named ‘Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. 3
was amalgamated with the appellant company4. The scheme of
amalgamation was sanctioned in November 2006. The appointed
date was fixed as 01.01.2006. As there were accumulated losses
in the balance sheet of amalgamating company, the issue is, as to
whether the same could be claimed as a set-off against the income
of the amalgamated company.
5. The argument raised by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for
the appellant is that in terms of the provisions of Section 54 of the
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 19915, the amalgamated company
as successor of the amalgamating company shall be entitled to set-off
of the losses suffered. In terms of Section 12 of the Kerala Act, the
losses suffered by an assessee can be carried forward for a period
of 8 years for set-off against the income of subsequent years. Relying
upon the judgment of this Court in Dalmia Power Ltd. and Another v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax6, it was submitted that once
the scheme of amalgamation is approved, all the clauses contained
therein stand approved. The rights of the parties flow therefrom. In
the aforesaid judgment, no objection was raised by the Income Tax
Department to various clauses of the scheme. Hence, the same were
held to be binding. In the case in hand as well, no objection was raised
to the scheme of amalgamation. Clause 14(2) thereof clearly provides
for set-off of losses incurred by amalgamating company against the
profits of the amalgamated company. The findings recorded by the High
Court in the impugned order are erroneous and are totally contrary
to the law laid down in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s case (supra). In fact,
the judgment of the High Court was delivered prior to the judgment
of this Court in the aforesaid case. The prayer is for setting aside
the judgment of the High Court and allowing the appellant’s claim for
setting off accumulated losses of the amalgamating company with
the profits of the amalgamated company.
6. In response, Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent submitted that reliance on the judgment of this
3 Hereinafter referred to ‘amalgamating company’
4 Hereinafter referred to ‘amalgamated company’
5 Hereinafter referred to ‘the Kerala Act’
6 2019 INSC 1410 : (2020) 420 ITR 339
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 165
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Court in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s case (supra) is totally misplaced. The
core argument raised by the appellant, is that once the scheme of
amalgamation has been approved with no objection raised by the
respondents therein, the terms and conditions contained therein have
to be given full effect thereto. It was submitted that in the aforesaid
case, this Court has specifically noticed that despite notice, the
Income Tax Department had not raised any objection to any of the
terms contained in the scheme of amalgamation whereas in the
case in hand, State of Kerala was never issued noticed during the
process of amalgamation.
6.1 It was further submitted that in terms of provisions of the
Section 12 of Kerala Act, set-off of accumulated losses can be
claimed only by the assessee who suffered the losses. As the
appellant/amalgamated company had not suffered those losses,
no set-off can be claimed. In any case, in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s
case (supra), the only issue was regarding filing of returns
which was allowed. The issue on merit regarding entitlement
of the relief was not gone into. Even as per the conditions
laid down in the scheme of amalgamation, especially Clause
17.1, the amalgamating company stands dissolved without
winding up. Meaning thereby, the assessee under the Kerala
Act, who had suffered the losses, is no longer in existence to
claim any set-off.
6.2 Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the respondent
further submitted that the language of Section 72A of the Income
Tax Act, 19617 is altogether different when compared with the
provisions of the Kerala Act. Section 2(7) of the Kerala Act
defines an assessee. Section 2(20) defines a person whereas
Section 3 thereof is the charging section. Section 12 thereof
deals with carry forward of losses, whereas Section 48 deals
with legal representatives of a person who dies. Section 54,
which talks about succession of a business, also does not come
to the rescue of the appellant as nothing contained therein
provides that amalgamated company/appellant can claim set-
off of the losses suffered by amalgamating company. Proviso
to the aforesaid section provides that if there is any existing
7 Hereinafter referred to ‘the 1961 Act’
166 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
tax demand against the amalgamating company, the same can
always be recovered from successor, namely, the amalgamated
company, but no other benefit accrues. Sections 57 to 59 of the
Kerala Act deal with the assessment of a person transferring
property, assessment in case of discontinued business of
a company, firm or association and assessment of the firm/
association which has been dissolved or has discontinued its
business. Section 60 of the Kerala Act deals with a case where
a company is in liquidation.
6.3 As the amalgamating company has ceased to exist, the appellant
cannot claim any set-off of the losses suffered by it. In support
of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of
this Court in General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A.
Khader,8 Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT,9 Singer
India Limited v. Chander Mohan Chadha and Others,10 CIT v.
Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd.,11 and Religare Finvest Ltd. v.
State (NCT of Delhi).12
6.4 He further referred to the impugned order dated 23.09.2011
passed by the High Court where a specific finding has been
recorded that the losses for which the set-off is sought to be
claimed by the appellant/amalgamated company pertains to a
period beyond 8 years, which otherwise also is not permissible
in terms of Section 12 of the Kerala Act.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
8. The provisions of the Kerala Act which are relevant for consideration
of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties are
extracted below:
“Section 2. Definitions. – In this Act unless the context
otherwise requires,
x x x
8 1986 INSC 85 : (1986) 2 SCC 656
9 1990 INSC 266 : 1990 Supp. SCC 675
10 2004 INSC 447 : (2004) 7 SCC 1
11 2019 INSC 815 : (2020) 18 SCC 331
12 2023 INSC 819 : (2024) 1 SCC 797
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 167
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
(7) “assessee” means a person by whom any tax or any
other sum of money is payable under this Act, and includes:
(i) every person in respect of whom any proceeding
under this Act has been taken for the assessment
of his income or of the income of any other person
in respect of which he is assessable, or of the loss
sustained by him or by such other person; or of the
amount of refund due to him or to such other person;
(ii) every person who owns or possesses any land in
which any crop is grown, the agricultural income of
which is liable to tax under the provisions of this Act
either on his own account or on account of others;
(iii) every person who is deemed to be an assessee
under any provision of this Act;
(iv) every person who is deemed to be an assessee in
default under any provision of this Act;
(20) “person” means any individual or association of
individuals owning, possessing or holding property for
himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and
partly for another, either as owner, possessor, trustee,
receiver, common manager, administrator or executor
or any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an
association of individuals, whether incorporated or not,
and any institution capable of holding property;
x x x
Section 3. Charge of agricultural income tax.- (1) Tax
at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act
shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance
with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the
total agricultural income of the previous year of every
person.
Provided that no tax shall be charged on any person
other than a company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) with effect from 1st
April, 2013.
x x x
168 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Section 12. Carrying forward of loss. –
Where any person sustains a loss as a result of computation
of agricultural income any year, the loss shall be carried
forward to the following year and set off against the
agricultural income of that year and if it cannot be wholly
set off, the amount of loss not so set off, shall be carried
forward to the following year and so on, but no loss shall
be carried forward for more than eight years.
x x x
Section 48. Legal Representative:-
(1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall
be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would
have been liable to pay under this Act if he had not
died, in the like manner and to the same extent as
the deceased.
(2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including
an assessment, re-assessment or recomputation
under chapter VII), of the agricultural income of the
deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum at
the hands of the legal representative in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (1)
(a) any proceeding taken against the deceased
before his death shall be deemed to have been
taken against the legal representative and may
be continued against the legal representative
from the stage at which it stood on the date of
death of the deceased;
(b) any proceeding which could have been taken
against the deceased if he had survived, may
be taken against the legal representative; and
(c) all the provisions of this Act shall apply
accordingly,
(3) The legal representative of the deceased shall for the
purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee.
(4) Every legal representative shall be personally liable
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 169
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
for any tax payable by him in his capacity as legal
representative, if, while his liability for tax remains
undercharged, he creates a charge on or disposes of
or parts with any assets of the estate of the deceased,
which are in, or may come into, his possession, but
such liability shall be limited to the value of the asset
so charged, disposed of or parted with in respect of
these assets.
(5) The liability of a legal representative under this section
shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4)
be limited to the extent to which the assets of the
deceased is capable of meeting the liability.
x x x
Section 54. Succession to business:-
Where a person carrying on any business in the course
of which agricultural income is received, has been
succeeded in such capacity by another person, such
person and such other person, shall each be assessed
in respect of his actual share of the agricultural income
of the previous year:
Provided that when the persons succeeded in the business
cannot be found, the assessment of the agricultural
income or the year in which the succession took place
upto the date of succession, and for the years preceding
that year shall be made on the person succeeding him,
in like manner and to the same extent, as it would have
been made on the person succeeded or when the tax in
respect of the assessment made for such years assessed
on the person succeeded cannot be recovered from him,
it shall be payable by and recoverable from the person
succeeding and such person shall be entitled to recover
from the person succeeded the, amount of any tax so paid.
AND
Income Tax Act, 1961
“Section 72A. Provisions relating to carry forward
and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed
170 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger,
etc.
(1) Where there has been an amalgamation of—
(a) a company owning an industrial undertaking
or a ship or a hotel with another company; or
(b) a banking company referred to in clause (c) of
section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
(10 of 1949) with a specified bank; or
(c) one or more public sector company or companies
with one or more public sector company or
companies; or
(d) an erstwhile public sector company with one
or more company or companies, if the share
purchase agreement entered into under
strategic disinvestment restricted immediate
amalgamation of the said public sector company
and the amalgamation is carried out within five
years from the end of the previous year in which
the restriction on amalgamation in the share
purchase agreement ends,]then, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other provision of this
Act, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed
depreciation of the amalgamating company
shall be deemed to be the loss or, as the case
may be, allowance for unabsorbed depreciation
of the amalgamated company for the previous
year in which the amalgamation was effected,
and other provisions of this Act relating to set
off and carry forward of loss and allowance for
depreciation shall apply accordingly:
Provided that the accumulated loss and the
unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating
company, in case of an amalgamation referred to
in clause (d), which is deemed to be the loss or,
as the case may be, the allowance for unabsorbed
depreciation of the amalgamated company, shall not
be more than the accumulated loss and unabsorbed
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 171
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
depreciation of the public sector company as on the
date on which the public sector company ceases to
be a public sector company as a result of strategic
disinvestment.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (d),—
(i) “control” shall have the same meaning as
assigned to in clause (27) of section 2 of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013);
(ii) “erstwhile public sector company” means a
company which was a public sector company
in earlier previous years and ceases to be
a public sector company by way of strategic
disinvestment by the Government;
(iii) “strategic disinvestment” means sale of
shareholding by the Central Government or any
State Government in a public sector company
which results in reduction of its shareholding to
below fifty-one per cent along with transfer of
control to the buyer.”
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is evident that Section
2(7) defines an assessee to mean a person liable to pay tax under the
Kerala Act. Section 2(20) defines a person to mean an individual etc.
owning, possessing or holding property which includes a corporate
as well. Section 3 of the Kerala Act, which is the charging Section,
provides for charging of tax as per the rates prescribed in the aforesaid
Act on the agricultural income. Section 12 of the Kerala Act enables
any person to carry forward any loss sustained in any year for set-off
against the income of subsequent years. Such loss can be carried
forward for a maximum period of 8 years. Section 48 of the Kerala Act
provides that in case, a person dies, his legal representatives shall
be liable to pay tax, which the deceased would have been liable to
pay under the aforesaid Act, if he had not died. Any proceedings for
the purpose can be against the legal heirs of such deceased person,
who shall be deemed to be an assessee under the aforesaid Act.
9.1 Section 54 of the Kerala Act deals with succession to business.
It provides that where a person carrying on any business has
been succeeded in such capacity by another person, such
172 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
person and such other person shall each be assessed in respect
of their actual share of agricultural income in the previous year.
Proviso to the aforesaid section provides that in case a person
who succeeded cannot be found, action can be taken against a
person who is succeeding such person. The succeeding person
is liable to pay tax, if any, due from the succeeded person.
9.2 Section 60 of the Kerala Act deals with the status of a company
in liquidation. In terms thereof, a liquidator of a company, being
wound up under order of the court or otherwise, has to issue
notice to the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, who in turn has to
specify to him, the amount of tax due under the aforesaid Act.
9.3 Section 72A of the 1961 Act deals with carry forward and set off of
accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in the
cases of amalgamation or demerger. The provision, starting with
a non-obstante clause, clearly provides that accumulated losses
and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company
shall be deemed to be loss or as the case may be, allowance
for unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company for
the previous year in which amalgamation was effected.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance upon
Clause 14.2 of the scheme of amalgamation. The same is extracted
below:
“Clause 14.2. With effect from the Appointed Date, all
the profits or Income accruing or arising to PRPL or
expenditure or losses arising or incurred by PRPL shall,
for all purposes, be treated as and shall deemed to accrue
as the profits or income or expenditure or losses, as the
case may be, of Aspinwall & Co.”
11. The fact which was not disputed by learned senior counsel for the
appellant at the time of hearing is that no notice of amalgamation
proceedings was issued to the State of Kerala to raise objection with
reference to any terms referred to with the amalgamation scheme.
12. Section 394-A of the Companies Act, 195613 makes it mandatory on
the Tribunal to issue notice in every application filed under Sections
13 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 173
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
391 or 394 to the Central Government and any objections raised
are to be considered. Section 394 of the aforesaid Act talks about
amalgamation of the companies. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India, had issued a Circular dated 15.01.2014 bearing
F.No.2/1/2014 providing that while responding to the notices issued
to the Government under Section 394-A, the Regional Director shall
invite specific comments from the Income Tax Department within 15
days. If no response is received from the Income Tax Department
during the aforesaid period, it may be presumed that the Income Tax
Department has no objection to the action proposed under Section 391
or 394, as the case may be. It is in the light of the aforesaid provision
and the circular that the comments of the Income Tax Department
are mandatory. The judgment of this Court in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s
case (supra) is dealing with a case under the Companies Act, 2013
where similar provision is contained in Section 230(5) specifically and
in Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and
Amalgamations) Rules, 2016. There is a specific finding recorded in
the aforesaid judgment that despite notice, Income Tax Department
did not raise any objection, within the stipulated time, to the scheme,
as proposed. The same was approved. As the scheme was approved,
all terms and conditions contained therein stood approved and could
be acted upon.
13. The facts in the present case are distinguishable. Neither there is
any statutory requirement for issuing notice to the State Government
before any scheme of amalgamation is approved by the Court under
the 1956 Act nor such notice was issued. Hence, to state that the
judgment in Dalmia Power Ltd.’s case (supra) covers the case of
the appellant, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Ordered
accordingly.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any
provision under the Kerala Act in terms of which the losses suffered
by amalgamating company can be set-off against the income of the
amalgamated company. His main reliance was only on the Clause
14.2 in the scheme of amalgamation. The argument addressed
with reference thereto has already been dealt with in the previous
paragraphs and rejected.
15. There is another finding on facts recorded by the High Court in the
impugned order dated 23.09.2011 dealing with the Assessment Year
174 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2006-07, i.e. that the loss of the amalgamating company/Pullangode
Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. pertained to a period beyond 8 years.
Assessment years in all other appeals are subsequent to that. Hence,
in terms of Section 12 of the Kerala Act the appellant/Aspinwall and
Co. Ltd. will not be entitled to any set-off. It is a case wherein the
appellant had lost in all fora. To challenge the aforesaid findings of
fact recorded by the High Court in the impugned order, no specific
ground has been raised in the petitions filed before this Court.
16. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the
present appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed. There shall
not be any order as to costs.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Amalgamation"Sign in to search