Query sec 72a - plz help!

Tax queries 787 views 7 replies

A comapny having two undertakings in two different cities(say for eg. Gujarat and Karnataka) is getting amalgamated with another company which is in the same line of business(both being industrial undertakings).

There are huge unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company which will belong to the amalgamated comapny once the amalgamation is over and on the fulfillment of certain conditions as per sec 72A.

 

 

the conditions to be fulfilled by Amalgamated Co are quoted from the section as follows:

          (b)  the amalgamated company—

       (i)  holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation at least three-fourths of the book value of fixed assets of the amalgamating company acquired in a scheme of amalgamation;

      (ii)  continues the business of the amalgamating company for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation;

    

(a) the amalgamated company, owning an industrial undertaking of the amalgamating company by way of amalgamation, shall achieve the level of production of at least fifty per cent of the installed capacity of the said undertaking before the end of four years from the date of amalgamation and continue to maintain the said minimum level of production till the end of five years from the date of amalgamation :

 

 

My Doubt:

 

1) as per the last condition, amalgamated co must achieve 50% of the installed capacity. So does this mean 50% capacity of both the units or of the unit as a whole. Coz in the present case there are two units of the amalgamating co.

Coz in the present case the amalgamated co is planning to close the operations of Gujarat unit which accounts for less than 50% of the installed capacity. Can it do so? Will it lead to fulfillment of conditions to claim deduction of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of amalgamating co???

 

PLZ HELP!!

Replies (7)

50% capacity which has to be achieved is of amalgamating company only.

Originally posted by : Mohit Agrawal

50% capacity which has to be achieved is of amalgamating company only.

 

Appreciate that you answered!! That I understood.. but my ques is a bit deifferent. The amalgamating comapany is having 2 units. one in gujarat and the other in karnataka. So whether the amalgamated co has to achieve 50% of the installed capacity of the whole amalgamating co as a whole

or

50% of gujarat unit and 50% of karnataka unit seperately.

as per my knowledge 50% is of the total installed capacity and now for a particular undertaking..,also i suggest you to refer the recent judgements as it is not clear in law

I  think it should be of the entire company and not unit wise.

I too feel the same but i need concrete view on the basis of some case laws which am just not able to find....!! so if anyone has come across any such judgement pls reply...

 

B4 I answer ur query,let me 1st share the rationale behind this provision.....
the Govt. wants to ensure that the industrial undertakings of the amalgamating company remain functional  & To ensure that this provision is not abused and the amalgamated company’s intention is not just to save tax by amalgamating with a company that has heavy accumulated losses. Also,the intention behind this provision was to rejuvenate production. The slowing down of the growth rate of industrial production prompted this provision. Merging of uneconomic units was felt to be desirable in order to improve production and realize economies of scale and thus this incentive was provided.
So if we go by the above logic,it's neccessary to achieve 50% production capacity of individual units or else the whole purpose of the provision is defeated.However companies are exploring the concept of reverse merger where in a loss making unit aquires a healthy unit to avail the benefit coz there is no such provision regarding the same as per my knwledge..........
hope this solves ur qurey........thnx.......

thanks for the rationale first of all...

and i do get your point... but the fact is, it is not so obviously evident from the wordings of the rule. and am unable to find any case law supporting the same. and i need to give an opinion on the same wid the help of sm concrete basis.

 

and shud you say thanks?? I shud. Thanks!!


CCI Pro

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register