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

.... the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue 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 ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,67,16,865/- (iii) Disallowance of Sales promotion expenses of Rs. 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" a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period relevant to the assessment year in question, the scheme was not yet sanctioned by the High Court. There is obviously no guarantee that such sanction would be granted. The claim of the assessee for such assessment year therefore, was immature. The Assessing Officer is also not oblivion of the fact that the scheme was actually sanctioned, before the final order of assessment was passed and that such development was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the assessee. 14. When once therefore, a scheme has been sanctioned by the High Court, which would relate back to the appointed date and such order is passed before the order of assessment is passed, it cannot be stated that the assessee should be denied the benefit ....