TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. It was verified from ITMR 2000-01 that the amount claimed as advertisement expenditure was ₹ 1,26,43,819/- and not ₹ 12,64,381/- as stated by the assessee. In view of the above position, the amount to be added to the total income on account of this reason, worked to ₹ 1,13,79,438/-. Against this proposed addition, the assessee has made the following submission: (Rs. in lakhs) Actual expenses Treatment in Books of A/cs Advertisement expenses treated as expenditure (in books A.Y 2000- 01) 189.66 63.22 Treated as deferred revenue (in the books of account for A.Y 2000-01) 126.44 Amount claimed in income tax memo(189.66 63.22 lakhs) (Pertaining to A.Y 2000-01 expenses) 126.44 Deferred revenue expenses considered in books (18.66/5x(75.8663.33) 12.64 Amount reversed in income tax memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the correct quantum of brought forward loss and allow the same as per law. We do not find that this issue can give grievance to the Department. The first appellate authority as only set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the correct quantum of carry forward loss and has also directed to allow the same. In that way of the matter, the Revenue cannot be said to be aggrieved. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in this finding of the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 20001-02 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A.No. 1389/Mds/2009 A.Y 2002-03 8. This appeal is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 9.6.2009. 9. The first issue taken vide ground No.2 of this appeal is regarding bad debt written off amounting to ₹ 5,69,40,649/-. In the statement filed alongwith the return of income, the assessee has claimed this amount as bad debt. The Assessing Officer wanted the assessee to show that the debt has really become bad and any action taken on the part of the assessee to make recoveries of these debts but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 72A read with Rule 9C to avail the above Carry Forward Losses:- Y-1 Y-2 Y-3 Y-4 Y-5 i) Holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation at least three-fourths in the value of assets of the amalgamating company acquired in a scheme of amalgamation; Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled ii) Continues the business of the amalgamating company for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation. Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled Fulfilled iii) Fulfills such other conditions as may be prescribed to ensure the revival of the business of the amalgamating company or to ensure that the amalgamation is for genuine business purpose. Refer conditions under Rule 9C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -05 2005-06 Blood Lancets 9 Mill i on Pieces 22 . 32 Million Pieces 31 . 96 M i l li on Pieces 1601 M illion P i e ce s 5 . 07 Mi ll ion pie c es - Foley Catheters 9 00000 Un i ts 876649 Un i ts 1491613 Un i ts 842 8 69 Un i ts 665505 Un i ts - Ur i ne Bags 600000 Units 87190 U nit s 474970 Units 88 740 Un i t s 105211 Units - B lo od Bags 4800 0 0 Units - - - - - S u tu res 165000 Dozens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 16.7.2010 passed in I.T.A.No. 369/Mds/09 for assessment year 2000-01 on the basis of which the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee. In this regard, para 22 and 23 of the Tribunal s order are being extracted herein below for ready reference: 22. Coming to the fourth issue being against the set off of the unabsorbed business loss and carry forward of depreciation relating to the business of TTK Biomed Ltd. it is noticed that the assessee has challenged that section 72 has been considered and section72A has not been invoked by the AO. A perusal of the issues raised by the AO does not show that the AO has considered only section 72 and not 72A. However, when deciding the issue in page 6 the AO has considered only section 72. Further the CIT(A) has considered section72A. Undisputably, the amalgamation of TTK Biomed Ltd. with the assessee company has taken place on 1.7.1999. In 2000 the assessee along with M/s. TTK Biomed and London International Group (LIG) has entered into non-compete agreement whereby both TTK Biomed Ltd. and the assessee has agreed to discontinue the business of manufacture and marketing of rubber contraceptives. This information has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to June-01 30.00 14.87 July-01 to June-02 30.00 17.85 July-02 to June-03 30.00 19.96 July-03 to June-04 30.00 2.54 A perusal of the provisions of section 72A read with Rule 9C clearly shows that the 5 years from the date of amalgamation as mentioned in section 72A(2)(iii) is the assessment years. This is because Rule 9C(b) specifies that the amalgamated company shall furnish to the AO a certificate in Form No. 62 duly verified by an Accountant with reference to the books of accounts and other documents showing particulars of production along with the return of income for the assessment years relevant to the previous years during which the prescribed level of production is achieved and for subsequent assessment years relevant to the previous years falling within 5 years from the date of amalgamation. Thus the chart as produced before the CIT(A) itself is not correct. Even according to the chart as produced before the learned CIT(A) in the years 1,2 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not used any of the equipment in respect of the rubber contraceptives manufacturing process of TTK Biomed Ltd. The assessee has also not placed before us any evidence to show that such machinery had continued to be used in respect of the manufacture of rubber contraceptives. Here it may also be mentioned that the chart, which has been referred to earlier and which has been extracted from the order of the learned CIT(A) from page 18 of his order, is in respect of the production details of surgeons gloves and not in respect of rubber contraceptives. Thus the assessee has practically stopped the production of rubber contraceptives and has failed to attain the requisite minimum production of surgeons gloves also. In these circumstances it is found that the said decision would not be applicable. 13. By respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we cannot allow this ground of the Revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2002-03 is partly allowed. 15. To summarize the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2001-02 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessment year 2002-03 is partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
