Amalgamation under Section 233 upheld where procedural requirements were met and incidental tax benefit did not bar sanction.
A scheme of amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as maintainable where notice was issued to the concerned authorities and creditors had approved the proposal, and the objection that the matter had to proceed under Sections 230 and 232 was found untenable. The Income Tax Department's challenge, based on alleged tax avoidance from reserves and surplus, was rejected because amalgamation transfers both assets and liabilities to the transferee company, and incidental tax benefit does not by itself invalidate the scheme. The amalgamation was therefore sanctioned, with statutory requirements relating to stamp duty, taxes, permissions and other compliances preserved.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition for amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable notwithstanding the objection that the matter ought to have been proceeded with under Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the Income Tax Department's objection that the scheme was devised to avoid tax on reserves and surplus was tenable; (iii) Whether the scheme of amalgamation deserved sanction.
Issue (i): Whether the petition for amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable notwithstanding the objection that the matter ought to have been proceeded with under Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: The petition was filed after notice to the concerned authorities and after approval by the creditors. The objection that the companies should have proceeded under Sections 230 and 232 was held to be untenable in view of the statutory scheme under Section 233(12), which applies the relevant provisions mutatis mutandis where the procedural requirements have been met.
Conclusion: The petition was maintainable under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Issue (ii): Whether the Income Tax Department's objection that the scheme was devised to avoid tax on reserves and surplus was tenable.
Analysis: The objection was rejected on the footing that, in amalgamation, the transferee company takes over both assets and liabilities of the transferor companies. The apprehension of tax avoidance was held not to invalidate the scheme merely because the arrangement may result in a tax benefit. The scheme also provided that tax and duty liabilities, refunds, and claims would stand transferred to the transferee company.
Conclusion: The tax objection was not tenable and did not bar sanction of the scheme.
Issue (iii): Whether the scheme of amalgamation deserved sanction.
Analysis: In light of the settled legal position and the absence of any sustainable objection, the amalgamation was found to be for the beneficial growth of the companies and not impermissible on the facts presented.
Conclusion: The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned.
Final Conclusion: The amalgamation was approved with binding effect on the companies, their shareholders, creditors, employees, and all concerned, while preserving all statutory requirements relating to stamp duty, taxes, permissions, and consequential compliances.
Ratio Decidendi: A scheme of amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be refused merely because it may incidentally yield tax advantages, where the statutory procedural requirements are satisfied and the liabilities of the transferor companies are taken over by the transferee company.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
