TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of assessee Deduction for prior period expenses - Held that:- In our view the case of the revenue is required to be dismissed as the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10, even otherwise, in view of the judgment in the matter of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT), the appeal of the revenue is required to be dismissed as the rate of tax remain the same in the present year as well as in the subsequent year. Therefore, there will not be any tax effect and the entire exercise of the revenue is only academic in nature. Addition on account of donations - Held that:- CIT (A) correctly deleted the disallowance by holding that the same were contributions made for various activities which also involved display of appellant’s banner and therefore these expenses had advertisement and publicity value for the appellant. However, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- in respect of payment made to Rose Society by relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 where the disallowance made by AO in respect of payment made to Rose Society was confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance paid to the DMG for computerization of its data - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the computerization. There are other lakhs of mine owners/licencees who are/will be benefitted by way of computerization of the department. Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the Government to computerize its department. Once the assessee is paying the lease rent and other charges to the Government for acquiring the rights to mines and minerals, the department, is not expected to ask any amount over and above the statutory charges. Any contribution made by the assessee to the Government for computerization, would be at its own cost and pay-roll. That cost incurred by the assessee for computerization of the department, in our view is not going to benefit the assessee exclusively and wholly. It may be a good-will gesture or an effort to oblige the bureaucrats by the assessee. We are not expressing any opinion/requirement of paying such huge amount to the department for the purpose of computerization Reduction of claim u/s 80IA by not considering the income from sale of CERs and liquidated damages as derived from the business of power ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensation paid to farmers amounting to ₹ 1,67,47,786/- for using their land for mineral extraction without appreciating the fact that the expenditure is of capital nature. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing to delete addition of ₹ 10.00 lakhs made by the AO by disallowing of contribution to State Renewal Fund despite the fact that it was an application of income and not expenditure incurred for business expediency. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding prior period expenses as allowed expense even when it is not coherence with the accounting policies followed by the assessee. 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing to delete addition of ₹ 2,34,990/- made by the AO by disallowing of contribution to social welfare activities despite the fact that it was not an allowable business expenditure. Similarly, in the appeal bearing ITA No. 124/JP/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1) Ld. Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms. Therefore, the charges paid by the assessee company to the farmers on per M.T. basis is nothing but the cost incurred towards excavation of Gypsum which is revenue expenditure. Assessee company has not acquired any asset or any enduring benefit by making such payment. Assessee has to make payment each and every time when the gypsum is extracted from the land and if no Gypsum is extracted no payment is required to be made. This itself shows that the payment made to farmers are not for long term benefit rather it is regular payment and an integral part of the cost of Gypsum. Hence the same is allowable as revenue expenditure. Further in earlier years also similar addition was deleted by ld. CIT (A) and department appeal was dismissed by Hon ble ITAT Jaipur Bench. The AO considered the submission of the assessee but the same was not acceptable to the AO. The AO was of the view that right to sale minerals embedded in the earth lies with the Government and the Government alone can either sale these rights or sale the minerals directly. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the above mentioned amount has been paid to the farmers for purchase of Gypsum is incorrect. Actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y. 2006-07 dated 31.03.2010 and also in ITA No. 466/JP/2006 decided on 26.06.2009 in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the earlier judgments of the ITAT, we dismiss the ground of the revenue. For ready reference Para 14 of the ITAT order in ITA 783/JP/2009 is reproduced herein below :- 14. We find that issue raised by the department in this ground has already been decided by this Bench of ITAT in assessee s own case for assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No 466/JP/2006 dated 26.6.2009, wherein compensation paid to farmers for using their land was allowed. The finding of the Bench in para 40 of the said order is reproduced as under :- We have carefully heard the rival submissions and find that the payment made by the assessee to farmers is a part of cost of gypsum only and no capital asset is acquired by the assessee by incurring these expenditure. Nature of loss to farmers is immaterial while judging the nature of expense in the hands of the assessee and therefore same cannot be basis for treating the expenditure as capital in nature. The ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the expenditure as revenue which does no call for any interference. Thus ground no. 1 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income by overriding title but when after receipt of the income by the assessee, the same is passed on to a third person in discharge of the obligation of the assessee, it will be a case of application of income by the assessee and not of diversion of income by overriding title. The AO observed that where a co-operative society transfer part of the net profit to a reserve fund as a requirement of statute, the question arises, whether such amount could be allowed either as a business expenditure or as income diverted by overriding title. The test in such case is the purpose for which the amount is set apart, the beneficiaries of such reserves and the right of the company over such reserves. The AO cited the judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jodhpur Co-operative Marketing Society (2005) 275 ITR 372 (Raj.) wherein the Hon ble Court has concluded that such reserves under the control of the society were for the ultimate benefit or the society as well as its shareholders, so that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.3.2010 to the following effect :- 15. We find that issue raised by the department in this ground has been decided by this Bench of ITAT in case of Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. for assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 233/JP/2009 dated 22.5.2009, wherein contribution to State Renewal Fund was allowed. The finding of the Bench in para 6 of the said order is reproduced as under : We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find that as per the memorandum of State Renewal Fund set up by the State Government, it is created with the object of providing a safety net for the workers likely to be effected by restructuring in the State Public Enterprises. We are thus of the view that the contribution made to the said fund is solely for the purpose of welfare and benefit of the employees. The Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 has observed that it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in course of business. The expenses can be incurred voluntarily and without necessity. Any contribution made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance of ₹ 4,40,113/- made by the by relying upon the earlier decision of ITAT. The conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT (A) is mentioned in para 4.3. of his order as under :- 4.3. I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant s written submission. From the submission of the appellant it is clear that Hon ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has been allowing prior period expenses in the case of various Government undertakings in the year in which such expenses are finally sanctioned and approved. Even in the appellant s own case the issue has been decided in favor of the appellant in AY 2000-01 by Hon ble Jaipur Bench ITAT vide order dated 22.12.2006. My predecessors have allowed prior period expenses in orders dated 10.08.2011 in AY 2008-09 and 18.10.2012 in A.Y. 2009-10. Respectfully following Hon ble ITAT s order in the case of the appellant in AY 2000-01 dated 22.12.2006 in ITA No. 600/JP/2003, the AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 4,40,.113/- because the table in the appellant s submission shows that the liability for the expenses got crystallized in the year under consideration. 9. Now the revenue is before us. 9.1. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO, therefore, disallowed the claim of expenses of ₹ 2,84,990/-. 11. On appeal before ld. CIT (A), the ld. CIT (A) deleted the disallowance amounting to ₹ 2,34,990/- by holding that the same were contributions made for various activities which also involved display of appellant s banner and therefore these expenses had advertisement and publicity value for the appellant. However, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- in respect of payment made to Rose Society by relying on the decision of Hon ble ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2008-09 where the disallowance made by AO in respect of payment made to Rose Society was confirmed by Hon ble ITAT. 12. Now the revenue is before us. 12.1. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. After going through the order of the ld. CIT (A), we find no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT (A), therefore, no interference is called for. Thus the ground of the revenue is dismissed. 13. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 1 of Assessee : 14. Ground no. 1 related to confirming the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of social welfare expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that it was claiming deduction under section 37(1) and not under section 35D. The basis of appellant s claim is that mining land and leasehold land are wasting assets and therefore cost needs to be amortised over the economic life. Appellant also mentioned that in earlier years, this claim was allowed by the AO. Appellant paid for mining land which is appellant s asset. Similarly payment for long-term lease of land also results in acquisition of asset. Land is not depreciable asset and therefore claim of depreciation cannot be made for land. The purpose of acquiring mining land may be mining but it cannot be said that after exhausting the mines, land has no value. On the other hand, land is appreciating asset and therefore there is no question of amortising or claiming any deduction in respect of land. Since appellant submitted that its claim is not under section 35D but under section 37(1), this has to be seen as per the provisions of section 37(1). Under the section no expense of capital nature is allowable. It is not in dispute that expense for mining land and leasehold land is capital expense and the same cannot be claimed as revenue under section 37(1). Once the expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization of wasting land is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, the same is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The ld. A/R for the assessee relied upon the judgments passed in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 (SC), DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd., 329 ITR 479 (Guj.). The ld. A/R for the assessee further contended that the assessee has acquired the mining land from the State Government or otherwise, is a license to carry on the mining. It was further contended that the license to carry on the mining is an intangible asset under section 2(11) of the IT Act. For that purpose, the ld. A/R relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the matter of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No. 714/Hyd/2012 dated 28.02.2014 where in para 22 it has been held as under :- 22. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. Similar came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of ITAT, Cuttack in case East India Minerals Ltd. Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 224/CTK/2012, vide its order dated 25/06/2012, on which reliance pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mortizing, the assessee has written back an amount of ₹ 5,79,10,317/- claimed in the earlier years as per the changed system as evident from Schedule of Fixed Assets and has offered for tax. Based on this, the AO has completed the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 where the written back of amortization of ₹ 5,79,10,137/- has been taxed. On the basis of the above, it was contended that if the orders passed by the authorities below have been confirmed, the assessee would be taxed double on the same amount. Therefore, the amortization of mining land claimed should be allowed in favour of the assessee. The ld. A/R sought to dispute the reasoning given by ld. CIT (A) while declining the claim of the assessee on the ground that the land in question is a depreciable asset and therefore the reasoning given by the ld. CIT (A) is not correct. On the other hand, the ld. D/R for the Revenue supported the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 20. Now the assessee is before us. 20.1. The vexed question before us is the amortization of amount paid for getting the mining land / leasehold land by the assessee. Whether it is required to be treated as revenue expenditure and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure. The judgment relied upon by the assessee of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taxman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said judgment the issue was not with respect to applicability of section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the ld. A/R for the assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, with the passage of guidelines for protecting the environment, now it is the duty of the lesser/assessee to submit and execute the mine c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, the ld. CIT (A) has upheld the reasoning given by the AO. The reasoning given by the ld. CIT (A) is mentioned in para 7.3 of his order as under :- 7.3. I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order an appellant s written submission. Assessing Officer disallowed appellant s contribution of ₹ 50 lakhs to Department of Mines and Geology for computerisation of Data. Appellant submitted that the contribution was made at the instruction of Secretary Mines, Government of Rajasthan that assessee was one of the user of the computerisation. Appellant also stated that its business being mining, the computerisation of the mining Department would have helped its business activity. Assessing Officer found that the claim of expenses not allowable under any provisions of IT acts. Appellant submitted decision of Rajasthan High Court in which construction of Dam was held to be revenue expense as against capital expense however this decision is not relevant here since the claim was not treated as capital by the AO. Appellant is an undertaking owned by Government of Rajasthan and payment of contribution was made at the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. The cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (DMG) has vide letter dated 26.10.2009 requested to provide the contribution of ₹ 50 lacs as agreed in the earlier, therefore, the said contribution was paid to them and accordingly the assessee has claimed the expenditure of ₹ 50 lacs to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. For this purpose, the ld. A/R of the assessee buttressed the argument after relying on the following judgments :- Rio Tinto India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 52 SOT 629 (Del.)(Trib.) CIT vs. Chemicals Plastics India Ltd. 292 ITR 115 (Mad.)(HC) CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 478 (Raj.)(HC) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 (SC) CIT vs. Dhanrajgiriji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 (SC) CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. 133 ITR 756 (SC) On the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the amount was spent with a view to have the benefit as the assessee will have the better usability of the information which is required to conduct the business of the assessee in coordination with the department of Mines Geology. It was prayed that the expenditure incurred by the assessee may kindly be allowed. 23.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have been provided. As per clause 36, the assessee is entitled to minimum guarantee generation per annum per MW and in case M/s. Suzlon Energy power plants fail to yield required power generation, the said company was liable to pay the liquidated damages to the assessee. In fact, clause 37 provides as under :- 37. For shortfall from the net minimum net minimum guaranteed generation, a levy the following rates from the date of commissioning will be leviable operative recoverable from their annual instalments. Years Rs. Per kwh 2 yrs 4.50 per kwh 4 yrs 5.00 per kwh 6 yrs 5.50 per kwh 8 yrs 6.00 per kwh 10 yrs 6.50 per kwh 12 yrs 7.00 per kwh 14 yrs 7.50 per kwh 16 yrs 8.00 per kwh 18 yrs 8.50 per kwh 20 yrs 9.00 per kwh It was contended by the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing of a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of the assessee and thereby parliament intended to cover sources of profits and gains not beyond the first degree. There must be direct nexus between the generation of profits and gains and the sources of profit and gains, the latter being directly relatable to the business of the assessee. Any other source, not falling within the first degree, could in a sense be described as ancillary to the business of the assessee. As the section 80IA of the Act has used work derived from instead of attributable to therefore this section does not intend to cover sources beyond the first degree. Keeping this distinction in mind it can be said that Liquidated damages and sale of CERs are not income derived from the industrial undertaking of the assessee. It can only be ancillary to the profits and gains relatable to or attributable to the business of the industrial undertaking and not in the category of profits and gains derived from the business. Further, the claim of the assessee that the income from sale of CERs is a capital receipt and not revenue income is also not justified at all as the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Energy Ltd. (equipment supplier) and not from the registered industrial undertaking. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA. It was further submitted that in section 80IA there is a deliberate user of the words profits and gains derived by undertaking. It was submitted that the word derived is having significant importance in deciding the character of income received by the assessee. In the present case, the liquidated damages are not derived by the assessee from any qualified business. However, it is derived on account of breach of the agreement between the assessee and the equipment supplier. 26. Now the assessee is before us. 26.1. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. The core issue which requires adjudication and decision is whether the short fall from the net minimum guaranteed power generation, the amount received by the assessee on account of levy of charges on the supplier can be treated as an income received by the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act or not. For the purpose of adjudication of this issue, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant clauses of the agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the contract. The immediate source will be first degree and not the second or third degree source. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 and Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 had laid down the authorities on the subject. In the identical facts and circumstances, Hon ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Pine Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 23 Taxman.com 369 in para 15 to 19 has held as under :- 15. In the present case, the standing charges were payable because Hindustan Lever Limited did not place purchase orders for the normative production possible. In other words, the assessee was not given purchase orders equal to the normative production possible. The assessee, therefore, did not produce or manufacture the products because of lack of orders or failure of Hindustan Lever Limited to place purchase orders for the possible normative production. Payment has been made for non-production and not because of unsold production, and therefore the failure to buy. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the assessee that the standing charges have been paid are towards the cost price of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estroyed by fire and therefore, is income derived from an industrial undertaking. The facts and ratio is different as the goods were manufactured and later on were destroyed in fire. The insurance company had made payment for the goods produced. Similarly, in CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 353 / 180 Taxman 557 (Delhi) it has been held that keeping in view the factual matrix, refund of excise duty paid was income derived from by an industrial undertaking. The factual matrix and the nature and character of payment, i.e., refund of excise duty in the said case was different. Excise duty may be a part of sale price or the sale consideration received, especially when the tax burden is not passed on and payment is made out of the sale proceeds. In the present case, on interpretation of the agreement, it is clear that the standing charges were paid to the assessee were not towards the cost price or the sale price of the products. Standing charges were payments made for non-utilization of the machinery etc., which remained idle and was not operated upto the normative production levels as stipulated in the agreement. Similar decision of the Guwahati High Court in CIT v. Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re receipts should be excluded in computing the total income since such receipt is a capital receipt as held in case of My Home Power Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 21 ITR (Trib.) 186 (Hyd.). 26.3. The AO observed that assessee has derived income from sale of CER from the day to day activity of generation of power. The nature of carbon trading is similar to duty drawback and DEPB income. Assessee himself has treated it as normal income in the original return/revised return. Hence, claim the assessee that it is a capital receipt is not tenable in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India, 317 ITR 218 as also Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. 27. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the findings of AO by holding that sale proceeds of CERs are revenue receipts not only from the intrinsic nature of the entitlement but also because these are closely connected with carrying out business. They are taxable u/s 28(iv) as benefit arising during the course of carrying on business. 28. Now the assessee is before us. 28.1. The ld. A/R for the assessee contended that the CER cannot be equated with receipts from the duty draw back and has submitted that the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reference. I have gone through the claim made by the assessee in respect of towards proportionate mines closure expenses for the financial yer 2009- 10 amounting to ₹ 2,49,04,000/-. As the assessee itself mentioned in his reply that the expenditure has not been debited in the books of accounts for the assessment year under consideration therefore no question of its allowability arises. Even otherwise, legally also the claim of the assessee is not valid in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, that claim of deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by AO otherwise than by filing revised return. 29.2. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT (A), who has disallowed the amount claimed by the assessee on the following reasons mentioned in para 9.3. of his order : 9.3. I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant s written submission. Appellant claimed mines closure liability during assessment proceeding which was not claimed in the books of accounts. Assessing officer did not allow the same of the ground that these expenses were not crystalli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not made the provision for the expenses in the books of account for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011- 12, the assessee has made the provision of ₹ 15,15,36,000/- in the books of accounts for the A.Y. 2012-13. In the books of accounts for the A.Y. 2012-13, the individual break up of assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 were given the following manner :- Assessment Year Amount (Rs.) 2010-11 2,49,04,000/- 2011-12 4,69,61,000/- 2012-13 7,96,71,000/- Total : 15,15,36,000/- During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has claimed the liability towards mines closure plan amounting to ₹ 2,49,04,000/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 (subject matter of present appeal). The AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has rejected the claim of the assessee for the reasons mentioned herein above. It is submitted by the ld. A/R for the assessee, that the amount of ₹ 2,49,04,000/- for the year under consideration is required to be allowed as the said amount is required to be depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oring the ecological balance and environment protection. Therefore, to say that the liability is merely a contingent and has not arises, in our view is preposterous and without any merit. The provisions are required to be made in the books of account of the assessee. Since the amount is ascertainable and discernable to be spent on the closure of the mines, in view of the formula given by the Ministry of Coal, therefore, in our view the liability is not a contingent liability and is required to be made provision in presenti and is required to be spent in a future date. The judgment referred by the ld. A/R for the assessee in the matter of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co. Ltd. (supra) and also in the matter of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 30.4. When the above principles are applied to the facts of the present case it can be noted that in terms of guidelines dt. 27.08.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Coal even the existing mines who are operating without the approval of mine closure plan are required to obtain a mine closure plan approved as per these guidelines. As per these guidelines mine closure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
