TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dismissed the appeals of the department. 4. The counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law in each appeal:- Income Tax Appeal No.191/2017 "(i) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in allowing set off current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Terry Towel Ltd. against the income of the assessee company despite of the fact that the issue of merger has not attained finality. (ii) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing set off of current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Modern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Appeal No.185/2017 "(i) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in allowing set off current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Terry Towel Ltd. against the income of the assessee company despite of the fact that the issue of merger has not attained finality. (ii) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing set off of current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. against the income of the assessee company in directing to pass protective assessment order in case of assessee company presuming that no amal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is further noticed that Section 40((a) (ia) refers to commission payable to a resident. Hence, this provision is not at all applicable. Section 40(a) is applicable in respect of payments to nonresident and the payment should be in the nature of interest, royality, fee for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act. It is undisputed fact that the sum is commission and the word commission is not specifically mentioned in Section 40(a). The sum paid is not chargeable in India under Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, Section 40(a) is not applicable. The ld. CIT(A) was therefore, justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,04,58,699/-. Thus the solitary ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Respectfully following the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e substantive order. However, it appears that the AO has deemed that the order of BIFR dated 13-04-2011 was final and conclusive. The counsel of appellant has brought to my notice the order passed by AAIFR dated 21-11-2011 wherein it has been categorically stated that the direction of BIFR at para 3(i) regarding submissions of DRS with cutoff date on 31-03-2010 and direction at para 3(ii) shall remain stayed till the disposal of appeal. Even after the disposal of appeal by AAIFR, there will be an option to the assessee company total income file appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Considering these difficulties, I had directed the AO to pass both the substantive assessment and protective assessment in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant company with effect from 01-01-2008 subject to approval of BIFR. In this assessment year, the appellant company had claimed the set off of business loss of M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. for A.Y. 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 62,18,541/- and has also claimed the set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. amounting to Rs. 94,24,43,685/-. In the order u/s 143(3) dated 6- 03- 12013, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the set off of losses due to amalgamation because as per the order of BIFR dated 13-04-2011, the amalgamation was effective only after 31-03-2010. 3.2 This issue also arose in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009- 10.The submissions made by the appellant during appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant wherein it was held that prior to the date of sanction by BIFR and higher Courts, there was provision in the scheme that business done by Modern Terry Towels Ltd. shall be on behalf of the appellant company..... Considering these difficulties, I had directed the AO to pass both the substantive assessment and protective assessment in the case of the appellant. In case if the amalgamation scheme was not sanctioned by AAIFR and higher Courts with effect from 01-01-2008 then the protective assessment completed by the AO shall prevail over the substantive assessment. I therefore, direct the AO to allow set off of current year losses and brought forward loses / unabsorbed depreciation of Modern Terry Towels Ltd. as per Section 72A against....