FOLLOW US
In September 2025, the fast-track corporate reorganisation route was widened beyond parent and wholly owned subsidiaries to group companies meeting the thresholds prescribed. A few months later, a Mumbai tax tribunal denied a demerger’s tax benefit over how its shares were issued, adding a second complication to the picture. Most boards planning a demerger today are looking at the expressway; very few have noticed the toll.
Let's understand what happened, and why it matters to anyone thinking about restructuring.
A demerger is a corporate split. It happens when one company separates a business, a division, or a vertical into a distinct entity. Shareholders of the original company then receive shares in that new entity, in proportion to what they already held There is no buyer involved, and no cash changes hands.. The same owners continue to hold the same value. The business is simply organised in a cleaner, more sensible structure.
Boards reach for this often, and for good reason:
This works because nothing is sold, and ownership is merely rearranged, the transaction shouldn't trigger tax. If tax neutrality breaks down, a demerger stops functioning as an efficient way of reorganisation. It instead becomes an expensive sale in which no money changes hands but tax is still payable.
For years, time was the biggest concern about mergers and demergers. . The conventional route runs through the company law tribunal, which involves multiple hearings, regulatory objections, typically taking six to eight months (often double where a listed entity is involved). The legal costs alone would make restructuring impractical for smaller hive offs.
The government has since opened a fast-track route; eligible companies can now execute mergers or demergers through an administrative approval instead of a tribunal process, compressing the timeline to roughly three months. For unlisted and closely held groups, the companies that restructure most often, this was a real gain.
The time problem has largely been solved by this but two separate developments since then have created a different kind of risk in its place.
One, the fast lane may not be tax-neutral for demergers at all, even as fast-track mergers continue to enjoy tax neutrality. The tax law's definition of a qualifying demerger was written with only the tribunal route in mind without any reference to the fast-track route.. The practical result is absurd; the identical transaction that is tax neutral if completed through a tribunal over several months, could attract capital gains and potentially deemed-dividend taxation for shareholders, if completed in half the time through the fast lane. The policy makers have stated that such demergers are not tax neutral as there are concerns on the valuation manipulation due to absence of NCLT oversight.
Two, even the conventional road just got narrower. In a recent ruling involving the Sterling Holiday -Thomas Cook group reorganisation, the Mumbai tribunal denied the group’s claim to carry forward roughly ₹240 crore in accumulated losses, giving the reason that the new shares given to shareholders were issued by the listed parent company, rather than by the subsidiary that actually received the business.
In group structures, having the parent issue shares is often the only version that makes commercial sense. Shareholders of the demerged company want listed, liquid paper, not certificates of an unlisted subsidiary nobody can trade. Moreover, where an undertaking is demerged into a wholly owned subsidiary (WOS), it is the shares of the parent, issued as per the valuation, that actually capture the value of the demerged undertaking for shareholders. However, the contrary interpretation the Mumbai tribunal has adopted is not commercially viable as shareholders receiving shares of the WOS would have no meaningful way to capture the value of the demerged business. Company law courts have permitted exactly this flexibility for a decade, in a handful of demergers where parent has issued the shares for demerger to a WOS and, with real irony, in the Thomas Cook group’s own scheme when it was originally approved.
The corporate law door was open. The tax door, it turns out, was not. Such a rigid interpretation risks shutting out few demerger structures adopted for entirely valid commercial reasons.
Three uncomfortable consequences follow
The ruling will likely be tested in appeal, and the fast-track anomaly may well be corrected. But “likely” and “may” cannot be a structuring strategy. If your group is contemplating a split in the next 12-24 months, pressure test the architecture before the scheme is drafted.
Boards that are planning a split, or already in the middle of one, are weighing speed against certainty right now. Whether the structure on your whiteboard has the parent issuing the shares, that's a conversation worth having this quarter.
