TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2004-05. 2.By order dated 22.03.2010, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the claim of carry forward losses under Section 72A of the Act, ought to have been allowed, where necessary conditions have not been satisfied?" 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to the judgement dated 13.02.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this court in T.C.A. No. 747 of 2009 in respect of the assessee's own case relating to the assessment year 2004-05, submitted that the identical question of law was raised in that case and the same was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith a view to secure timely detection of sick and potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings and to determine preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures required to be taken with respect to such companies, the Bench considered the various provisions of the SICA, in specific Section 32(2). 15. Reference is made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Mahindra and Mahindra and Others (144 ITR 225) that considered a challenge to Section 72 A. The following paragraph from the judgement in Mahindra's case has been particularly noted and extracted: 'Before undertaking a scrutiny of these reasons for ultimately deciding whether the impugned c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offering an incentive in that behalf s. 72A was introduced in the Act where under by a deeming fiction the accumulated loss or unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company is treated to be a loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamated company in the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected; but the amalgamated company, although a successor in interest, would be entitled to carry forward and set-off the accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company only where the amalgamating company was not, immediately before such amalgamation, financially viable and the amalgamation was in public interest. The expression "financial non-viability" had not been defined in the Act b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t health of the entity is to be determined by the Board. It is only when the Board was satisfied that it would have, in the first place, entertained applications for revival, sanctioning appropriate schemes for rehabilitation. Thus, a sanction by the BIFR implies that the requirements of Section 72(2) of the Act have been met. 17. This provision, and the interplay thereof with the provisions of the Income tax Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Shaving Products (supra) where at paragraph 7 the Bench holds as follows: '7. Under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, to give to the amalgamated Company the benefit of the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act have been met and the BIFR must exercise the power conferred upon it by Section 32(2} of the said Act and make the declaration contemplated by Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, The conditions for sanctioning a scheme under Section 18 of the said Act being the same as those required for a declaration under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, the BIFR could not have sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of Sharp Edge with the appellant but declined to make the declaration under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act with regard to that amalgamation' (underlining for emphasis, ours) 18. Nothing further remains to be said in the light of the categoric conclusion of the Supreme Court emphasised above. The view taken by the A....