TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance under section 14A could be recomputed by applying Rule 8D for an assessment year prior to its prospective operation, and whether the ad hoc restriction to Rs. 70,000 was sustainable. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged undertaking under section 72A in a case where the demerger was alleged to lack genuine business purpose.
Issue (i): Whether the disallowance under section 14A could be recomputed by applying Rule 8D for an assessment year prior to its prospective operation, and whether the ad hoc restriction to Rs. 70,000 was sustainable.
Analysis: The method prescribed by Rule 8D for quantifying disallowance under section 14A is prospective and does not apply to assessment years before assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal accepted that the CIT(A) was correct in holding Rule 8D inapplicable retrospectively and in sustaining a reduced ad hoc disallowance. Since the assessee did not challenge the quantum sustained, there was no basis to disturb that finding.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and the restriction of the disallowance was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged undertaking under section 72A in a case where the demerger was alleged to lack genuine business purpose.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that section 72A governs the availability of set-off in cases of amalgamation and demerger and that approval of a scheme by the High Court does not by itself confer an automatic right to carry forward and set off losses. The object of section 72A is the revival of sick units, not the use of restructuring as a device to capture tax benefits. On the facts, the undertaking was held for sale and business was not continued after demerger, indicating that the arrangement was not for the genuine purpose contemplated by the provision. The CIT(A) was therefore found to have overlooked the statutory conditions and the legislative object.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and the set-off claim was disallowed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in relation to the claim for carry forward and set-off of losses and depreciation arising from the demerged undertaking, while the disallowance under section 14A as sustained by the CIT(A) remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule-based disallowance machinery under section 14A is prospective, and a demerger approved by a court does not automatically entitle the assessee to section 72A benefits unless the statutory object of revival and genuineness of the restructuring is satisfied.
TaxTMI 
