Amalgamation-linked depreciation relief denied; lease surrender loss treated as capital, while incentive income claim needs fresh review.

Section 72A relief was unavailable because the transaction involved transfer of a manufacturing division, not an amalgamation or demerger in the statutory sense; the unabsorbed depreciation of another company could not therefore be carried forward or used to revise the written down value of acquired assets. Lease advance forfeited on surrender of land for a proposed factory was capital in nature, so the resulting loss remained capital loss rather than revenue expenditure. The treatment of alleged incentive income depended on whether it had actually accrued and on the relevant accounting entries, so that issue was remanded for fresh examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation of another company under section 72A; (ii) whether the assessee could alternatively enhance the written down value of the acquired assets by the same amount of unabsorbed depreciation; (iii) whether the loss arising from surrender of leasehold land was revenue expenditure or capital loss; and (iv) whether the alleged incentives not accrued could be excluded from income.

Issue (i): whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation of another company under section 72A.

Analysis: Section 72A applies only where there is an amalgamation or demerger of companies. The definition of amalgamation requires merger of one company with another in the statutory sense, with the property, liabilities and shareholder requirements satisfied. On the facts, only the manufacturing division was transferred to the assessee, while the original companies continued to exist. The arrangement amounted to acquisition of assets and liabilities of a division, not amalgamation of the company whose depreciation was claimed.

Conclusion: The claim for set off of unabsorbed depreciation under section 72A was not allowable.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee could alternatively enhance the written down value of the acquired assets by the same amount of unabsorbed depreciation.

Analysis: The precedents relied upon dealt with amalgamation cases and the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation or written down value in that context. Since there was no amalgamation here, the statutory basis for revising the written down value on account of another company's unabsorbed depreciation was absent. The cost of the assets acquired in the transaction remained the relevant figure for depreciation purposes.

Conclusion: The request to enhance the written down value was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the loss arising from surrender of leasehold land was revenue expenditure or capital loss.

Analysis: The lease advance was paid for acquiring land for setting up a factory, which was part of the capital structure of the proposed project. The expenditure was linked to acquisition of a capital asset, and the fact that the project did not ultimately materialise did not change its character. The authorities' view that the amount forfeited represented a capital loss was consistent with the nature of the transaction.

Conclusion: The loss on surrender of lease was held to be capital in nature and the disallowance was sustained.

Issue (iv): whether the alleged incentives not accrued could be excluded from income.

Analysis: The incentives had been accounted for in the books, but the assessee contended that they had not actually accrued or become receivable. The factual position regarding the accounting entries and their reversal in later years required verification. The proper course was to examine the claim afresh in light of the relevant accounting entries and the treatment in subsequent years.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the question of reconsideration of the incentive income claim, while the claims relating to unabsorbed depreciation, written down value, and lease surrender loss were rejected.

---