TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred by the assessee is related to FY 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21, which was not a necessary precondition for the transfer of undertaking /division as slump sale? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting the amount of Rs. 82,59,94,515/- as a deduction u/s 48(1) in computing the capital gain on slump sale of port division in FY 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) is empowered under the Act to reduce the returned income of assessee by way of recomputation of deduction under section 50B whereas 'Goetze (India) Ltd. ' is with regard to only a new claim made in the assessment and not concerning modification of claim? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 82,59,94,515/- as an allowable expense in the instant assessment year which is patently wrong in as much as the assessee is following mercantile systems of accounting and as such expenses crystallized in AY. 2019-20 cannot be allowed during the assessment year in question? 5. Whether on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-14. It is also a fact on record that the assessee company M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. has got merged with M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2019 by virtue of the order dated 10.03.2020 and 24.04.2020 respectively. The Assessing Officer (AO) after declining the contentions raised by the assessee M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. framed the assessment at a taxable income of Rs. Nil and the current year loss was assessed at Rs. 3,28,99,74,519/- instead of nil. 3. The assessee M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) both the Revenue as well as the assessee M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal and cross objection respectively. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 5. Undisputedly the assessee company M/s. Larse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowed by the AO?" 7. The Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the facts decided the issue in question in favour of the assessee by returning following findings: "6.4 It is a fact that the appellant has not made the claim in the Return of Income. However, the claim was made before the completion of assessment proceedings. In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT 430 ITR 114, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the assessee could make additional claim for deduction before the appellate authorities which ought to be considered. The Hon'ble High Court also held that while the AO was right in rejecting the claim for such a deduction, the appellate authorities were duty bound to consider it. In the instant case, the appellant has brought out sufficient facts to establish that a differential lease rental premium of Rs. 82,59,94,515/-, which was subsequently crystallized and paid by the appellant to TIDCO, has been an integral part of such transfer. 6.4.1 As per the scheme of arrangement between L&T Shipbuilding Ltd. ('demerged company') and Marine Infrastructure Developer P. Ltd. ('resulting company'), Part 5 Para 5.8 "all costs, charges and expenses of the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfer of the property as per scheme of agreement and leasehold rights in the land was part of the port undertaking which was transferred as per the scheme of arrangement. The contention raised by the Ld. D.R. that the liability to pay upfront lease rental in favour of TIDCO for bifurcation and transfer of port land is the liability of undertaking as it appears in their books of account, is not sustainable because the assessee has come up with specific claim that this liability was crystallized after filing the return of income which is in accordance with the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble NCLT, Chennai vide its order dated 20.03.2017. When it was a slump sale section 45 & 48 do not bar the company from claiming expenses. So in order to compute the capital gains provisions contained under section 48 are applicable which provide that while computing the capital gain the value of consideration reduced by the cost of improvement and cost of acquisition and also expenditure incurred for transfers are to be considered. 13. When the income of the assessee is chargeable under the head capital gains qua the years in which transfers was affected, the expenses pertaining to the....