TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such order is passed before the order of assessment is passed, it cannot be stated that the assessee should be denied the benefit of such development merely on the ground that during the accounting period and when the return was filed, the High Court order sanctioning the scheme was not yet passed. The very effect of the order of High Court sanctioned the scheme relating back to the appointed date would be that for all purposes including for recognising the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and losses of a merging Company with those of principal company would be available from such date. In view of the aforesaid, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 311 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2019 - MR J. B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 153A of the Act, declaring the total income as Nil. Thereafter, the assessment under Section 153A of the Act was finalized on 30th December 2009, determining the total assessed income at rupees nil. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the assessee to set off business losses of M/s.Dolphin Laboratories Limited (the company which was amalgamated) to the extent of ₹ 43,49,59,740/-. The Assessing Officer also allowed the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 4,67,16,865/-. On scrutiny of the records, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2, Ahmedabad, formed an opinion that the assessment order could be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In such circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d date or the date of amalgamation , i.e. 1.1.2006. 7. On the other hand, this Appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr.Hiren Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. Mr.Trivedi pointed out that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of IRM Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, reported in (2016)72 taxmann.com 288 (Gujarat), wherein this Court took the view that, once the scheme is sanctioned, the same would relate back to the appointed date of amalgamation. We may quote the relevant observations thus : 13. It may therefore, be that when the return was filed, the scheme of amalgamation was yet not sanctioned by the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied the benefit of such development merely on the ground that during the accounting period and when the return was filed, the High Court order sanctioning the scheme was not yet passed. The very effect of the order of High Court sanctioned the scheme relating back to the appointed date would be that for all purposes including for recognising the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and losses of a merging Company with those of principal company would be available from such date. What would be the effect of the High Court order being passed after assessment is framed is not necessary for us to enter in the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
