2021 (10) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the share premium collected on the issue of Share Capital by the appellant cannot be taken as part of the 'Capital Employed' for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 2. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of companies cannot be treated as asset for allowing deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act? 3. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in impliedly holding that the deduction under Section 35D be disturbed in the subsequent years? 4. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ejecting the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Shree Synthetics Ltd., supra. 22. In Coffeeday Global Ltd., supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the meaning of the word "expansion" and "extension" and it has been held that these words connote different meaning and legislature in its wisdom has used the terms differently under various provisions of the Act itself and therefore, the words cannot be used synonymously. With great respect, we are unable to concur with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh inasmuch as the interpretation given to the phrase "being" in Explanation [a][ii] to Section 35D[3] of the Act. In our considered opinion, the wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ifference between "expansion" and "extension", the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the consolidation procedures as per the Accounting Standard [AS-21], cannot be countenanced." Hence, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Re. Substantial question of law No.3: 5. It is not in dispute that Section 35D has been disturbed in the subsequent years in a manner known to law. Hence, this question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Re. Substantial question of law No.4: 6. This question is covered by the ruling of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Mindtree Ltd., V/s. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax....