2019 (7) TMI 1277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue has proposed the following two substantial questions of law : "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 43,49,59,470/- made on account of disallowance of business loss of Dolphin Laboratories ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 4,67,16,865/- made on account of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories ?" 3. It appears from the materials on record that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products. There was a search operation carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the case of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 22,95,000/- 4. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the order, preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 28th March 2014, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue came to be dismissed. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is here before this Court with the present Appeal. 6. The principal argument of Mrs.Bhatt, the learned senior counsel, is that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous because the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the "cut off date" and not the "appointed date" or the "date of amalgamation", i.e. 1.1.2006. ....