Mar 31, 2014
1. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES NOT PROVIDED FOR:
a) MSEB CLAIM NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COMPANY: As per letter dated
15.4.2002 issued by MSEB after mutual discussions, the Company had to
receive an amount of Rs 4,308.75 from MSEB. Whereas as per letter dated
15.7.2002, MSEB has demanded that the Company pays an amount of Rs
10,37,605.75/- to mSeb. The Company has asked MSEB to arrive at the
correct amount after mutual discussions and as required under the
Maharashtra State Government''s order dated 16.11.96. Hon''ble AAIFR vide
on order dated 14.12.06 has directed MSEB to implement the order of the
State Government dated 16.11.96 & grant the necessary relief to the
Company within three weeks from the date of the said order. MSEB
approached the Bombay High Court against the order of AAIFR and claimed
an amount of Rs.68,80,389/- (Previous Year Rs.68,80,389/-) from the
company including interest and penalty upto the date of filing its
petition. The Honorable High Court on 4th June, 2008, directed that an
amount of Rs 60 Lakhs be placed with mSeb pending the final disposal of
the matter. Against this MSEB was required to give a Bank Guarantee to
the High Court. In a Petition filed by the co, the Hon''ble Supreme
Court directed the High Court to expedite the hearing. Company has
approached the Hon''ble High Court for expeditious hearing. In the
opinion of the Management, the Company is eligible for various reliefs
& concessions as per the package of MSEB.
b) Penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs (Previous Year Rs.10 Lakhs) levied under FERA
(Refer Note 4)
2. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MAHARASHTRA
UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 TO THE COMPANY FOR CARRYING
ON ULTRA VIRES ACTIVITIES: The Company had received a show cause notice
from Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra for violation of Sec.13 of the
Companies Act, 1956 in the period prior to March 1991. The then
Managing Director of the Company Mr. Ramniklal Sheth and two other
Ex-Directors Mr. B. F. Jhaveri and Mr. C. A. Mehta were carrying on the
business in Diamond in the name of the Company. The Ministry of
Corporate Affairs has concluded that the activities of carrying on such
business are ultravires and such opinion is formed after investigation
of the records and documents of the Company, under Section 209 A of the
Companies Act, 1956.
3. PENALTY OF RS. 10 LAKH IMPOSED BY SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
UNDER FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT, 1973: Office of the Special
Director of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) issued show
cause notice to the Company and two erstwhile Directors i.e. Mr. R. A.
Sheth and Mr. C. A. Mehta for violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) read
with sections 68(1) & (2) of the FERA Act 1973. This violation is for
non- realization of the export proceeds. During Feb.1989 to Feb.1990
when erstwhile Directors Mr. R. A. Sheth and Mr. C. A. Mehta were in
charge of the affairs of the Company.
The Enforcement Directorate has imposed penalties of Rs.40 Lakhs each
on the said two responsible ex-Directors, as they have been found
personally responsible for the violation of FERA.
In the opinion of the Director of Enforcement the Company, being a
juridical person, is also to be charged although only the above named
two ex-directors were personally involved in the violation and there is
every possibility that moneys were directly realized by both of them.
The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the Company is contested and
matter is pending. No provision is made in accounts as in the opinion
of the Directors, the Company is not required to pay penalty.
4. In the opinion of the Board, all of the assets other than fixed
assets and non-current investments, have a value on realization in the
ordinary course of business at least equal to the amount at which they
are stated. The provisions of all known and determined liabilities are
adequate and not in excess of the amount reasonably necessary.
5. During the year company has written off total expenditure on
development of internally generated brands amounting to Rs. 96,11,107/-
(including amount of Rs. 76,84,680/- as carried under the head
Intangible Asset under Development till previous year) has been charged
to Profit & Loss Account in current year to bring it in consonance with
Accounting Standard 26.
6. The company was mainly engaged in the business of manufacturers,
processing and trading in vegetable oils and chemicals derived thereof,
chemicals and allied products in the year. Therefore, all the
operations of the company are considered as single segment for the
purpose of As 17 on "Segment Reporting" issued by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India.
7. In pursuance of AS 28 on impairment of assets issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the company has undertaken
summary overview of the assets held by it and is of the view that no
asset requires provision for impairment.
8. Disclosure pursuant to Accounting Standard - 15 ''Employee Benefits''
i. Contribution to Provident Fund
The Companies contribution to Statutory Provident Fund is charged to
the Statement of Profit and Loss under the head Contribution to
Provident Fund is Rs. 2,48,873 /- (P.Y. Rs. 2,03,712/-).
ii. Gratuity / Leave Salary
The Company has few employees hence the actuarial valuation is not
viable. The gratuity and leave encashment liability are charged to
Profit & Loss Account through accruing liabilities based on the
assumption that such benefits are payable to the employees at the end
of the accounting year. The Company during the year provided Rs.
3,53,585/- (PY: Rs. 2,03,711/-) towards gratuity and leave salary.
9. The previous year''s figures have been regrouped/re-classified to
confirm to this year''s classification.
Mar 31, 2013
1. CONTINGENT LIABILTIES NOT PROVIDED FOR:
a. MSEB dues not acknowledged by the Company since reliefs and
concessions given to units referred to BIFR as per the package of the
Maharashtra State Government have to be granted to the Company. As per
letter dated 15.4.2002 issued by MSEB after mutual discussions, the
Company had to receive an amount of Rs 4,308.75 from MSEB. Whereas as
per letter dated 15.7.2002, MSEB has demanded that the Company pays an
amount of Rs 10,37,605.75 to MSEB. The Company has asked MSEB to arrive
at the correct amount after mutual discussions and as required under
the Maharashtra State Government''s order dated 16.11.96. Hon''ble AAIFR
vide on order dated 14.12.06 has directed MSEB to implement the order
of the State Government dated 16.11.96 & grant the necessary relief to
the Company within three weeks from the date of the said order. MSEB
approached the Bombay High Court against the order of AAIFR and claimed
an amount of Rs.68,80,389/- (Previous Year Rs.68,80,389/-) from the
company including interest and penalty upto the date of filing its
petition. The Honorable High Court on 4th June, 2008, directed that an
amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs be placed with MSEB pending the final disposal
of the matter. Against this MSEB was required to give a Bank Guarantee
to the High Court. In a Petition filed by the Compay, the Hon''ble
Supreme Court directed the High Court to expedite the hearing. Company
has approached the Hon''ble High Court for expeditious hearing.
b. Penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs (Previous Year Rs.10 Lakhs) levied under
FERA (Refer Note 4)
2. The Company''s Factory is now situated at Dheku (Developing
Industrial Area). In the opinion of the Management, the provisions of
Employees State Insurance Act, 1946 are therefore, not applicable to
the Company.
3. Show Cause notice issued by Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra
under section 13 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the Company for carrying
on ultra vires activities
The Company had received a show cause notice from Registrar of
Companies, Maharashtra for violation of Sec.13 of the Companies Act,
1956 in the period prior to March 1991. The then Managing Director of
the Company Mr. Ramniklal Sheth and two other Ex- Directors Mr. B. F.
Jhaveri and Mr. C.A. Mehta were carrying on the business in Diamond in
the name of the Company. The Department of Company Affairs has
concluded that the activities of carrying on such business are
ultravires and such opinion is formed after investigation of the
records and documents of the Company, under Section 209 A of the
Companies Act, 1956.
4. Penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs imposed by Special Director of Enforcement
under Foreign Exchange Regulation ACT, 1973. Office of the Special
Director of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) issued show
cause notice to the Company and two erstwhile Directors i.e. Mr.R.A.
Sheth and . Mr.C.A.Mehta for violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) read
with sections 68(1) & (2) of the FERA Act 1973. This violation is for
non-realization of the export proceeds of Rs.1.11 crores in respect of
export of Diamonds and Rs.64.51 lakhs for export of Methyl Esters
during Feb.1989 to Feb.1990 when erstwhile Directors Mr. R.A.Sheth and
Mr.C.A.Mehta were in charge of the affairs of the Company.
The Enforcement Directorate has imposed penalties of Rs.40 Lakhs each
on the said two responsible ex-Directors as they have been a found
personally responsible for the violation of FERA.
In the opinion of the Director of Enforcement the Company, being a
juridical person, is also to be charged although only the above named
two ex-directors were personally involved in the violation and there is
every possibility that moneys were directly realized by both of them.
The penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed on the Company is contested and
matter is pending. No provision is made in accounts as in the opinion
of the Directors, the Company is not required to pay penalty.
5. In the opinion of the Board, all of the assets other than fixed
assets and non-current investments, have a value on realization in the
ordinary course of business at least equal vto the amount at which they
are stated. The provisions of all known and determined liabilities are
adequate and not in excess of the amount reasonably necessary.
6. In the opinion of the Management, the Company is developing brands
for its products which will provide long term future benefits and hence
the amount of Rs.76,84,680/- is considered as a Capital Expenditure for
Intangible Assets.
7. The Company has licensed out its soap plant to M/s Nova Oleochem
Limited an Associate Concern.
8. Appointment of Company Secretary
As required by the provisions of Section 383 A of the Companies Act,
1956, Company has appointed a Whole time Company Secretary with effect
from 10th May, 2013.
9. The company is mainly engaged in the business of Manufacturing and
Processing Vegetable oil and Allied Products in the year. Therefore all
the operations of the Company are considered as single segment for the
purpose of As 17 on "Segment Reporting" issued by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India.
10.. In pursuance of AS 28 on impairment of assets issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the company has undertaken
summary overview of the assets held by it and is of the view that no
asset requires provision for impairment.
11. Current Tax
The taxable income of the Company being lower than the book profit as
per the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Company has provided for Minimum
Alternate Tax (MAT) on its income.
Deferred Tax
The Company has made provision for net deferred asset in respect of
eligible unabsorbed losses/depreciation as it is confident of
generating sufficient future income based on its future plans. The net
deferred tax assets including related credit on the long term capital
loss and business losses prior to last eight assessment years have not
been recognized in these accounts on the prudent basis. This is in
accordance with Accounting Standard 22 "Accounting for Taxes on Income"
issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
Mat Credit Entitlement
The Company has made provision for MAT Credit Entitlement in respect of
MAT payments in earlier years as it is confident of generating
sufficient future income based on its future plans. MAT Credit
Entitlement amounting to Rs.52,71,878/- (Previous Year  Nil) has been
recognized during the year.
12. Disclosure pursuant to Accounting Standard  15 ''Employee
Benefits''
i. Contribution to Provident Fund
The Companies contribution to Statutory Provident Fund is charged to
the Statement of Profit and Loss under the head Contribution to
Provident Fund is Rs.2,03,612 /-(PY Rs. 59,898/-).
ii. Gratuity / Leave Salary
The gratuity and leave encashment liability are charged to Profit &
Loss Account through accruing liabilities based on the assumption that
such benefits are payable to the employees at the end of the accounting
year. The Company during the year provided Rs. 71,019/- (PY: Rs.
53,712/-) towards gratuity and Rs.1,32,692/- (PY: Rs.80,765/-) towards
leave salary.
13. The company has accounted for remunerations paid to temporary
staff under the head Temporary staff expenses / Sales promotion
expenses. No retirement benefits have been provided on the same as none
of the employees are eligible for same.
14. The previous year''s figures have been regrouped/re-classified to
confirm to this year''s classification.
Mar 31, 2012
Under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006,
certain disclosures are required to be made relating to dues to Micro,
Small and Medium enterprises. Based on the information available with
the Company, there are no parties who have been identified as micro,
small and medium enterprises based on the confirmations circulated and
responses received by the management.
1. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES NOT PROVIDED FOR:
a. MSEB dues not acknowledged by the Company since reliefs and
concessions given to units referred to BIFR as per the package of the
Maharashtra State Government have to be granted to the Company. As per
letter dated 15.4.2002 issued by MSEB after mutual discussions, the
Company had to receive an amount of Rs 4,308.75 from MSEB. Whereas as
per letter dated 15.7.2002, MSEB has demanded that the Company pays an
amount of Rs 10,37,605.75 to MSEB. The Company has asked MSEB to arrive
at the correct amount after mutual discussions and as required under
the Maharashtra State Government's order dated 16.11.96. Hon'ble
AAIFR vide on order dated 14.12.06 has directed MSEB to implement the
order of the State Government dated 16.11.96 & grant the necessary
relief to the Company within three weeks from the date of the said
order. MSEB approached the Bombay High Court against the order of AAIFR
and claimed an amount of Rs.68,80,389/ - (Previous Year Rs.68,80,389/-)
from the company including interest and penalty upto the date of filing
its petition. The Honorable High Court on 4th June, 2008, directed that
an amount of Rs 60 Lakhs be placed with MSEB pending the final disposal
of the matter. Against this MSEB was required to give a Bank Guarantee
to the High Court. In a Petition filed by the co, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court directed the High Court to expedite the hearing. Company has
approached the Hon'ble High Court for expeditious hearing.
b. Penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs (Previous Year Rs.10 Lakhs) levied under
FERA(R efer to Note 4)
2. The Company's Factory is now situated at Dheku (Developing
Industrial Area). In the opinion of the Management, the provisions of
Employees State Insurance Act, 1946 are therefore, not applicable to
the Company.
3. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MAHARASHTRA
UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 TO THE COMPANY FOR CARRYING
ON ULTRA VIRES ACTIVITIES
The Company had received a show cause notice from Registrar of
Companies, Maharashtra for violation of Sec.13 of the Companies Act,
1956 in the period prior to March 1991. The then Managing Director of
the Company Mr. Ramniklal Sheth and two other other Ex- Directors Mr.
B. F. Jhaveri and Mr. C.A. Mehta were carrying on the business in
Diamond in the name of the Company. The Department of Company Affairs
has concluded that the activities of carrying on such business are
ultravires and such opinion is formed after investigation of the
records and documents of the Company, under Section 209 A of the Compa
nies Act, 1956.
4. PENALTY OF RS.10 LAKH IMPOSED BY SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
UNDER FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT, 1973.
Office of the Special Director of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act) issued show cause notice to the Company and two
erstwhile Directors i.e. Mr.R.A. Sheth and . Mr.C.A.Mehta for violation
of Section 18(2) and 18(3) read with sections 68(1) & (2) of the FERA
Act 1973. This violation is for non-realization of the export proceeds
of Rs.1.11 crores in respect of export of Diamonds and Rs.64.51 lakhs
for export of Methyl Esters during Feb.1989 to Feb. 1990 when erstwhile
Directors Mr. R.A.Sheth and Mr.C.A.Mehta were in charge of the affairs
of the Company. The Enforcement Directorate has imposed penalties of
Rs.40 Lakhs each on the s aid two responsible ex-Directors as they have
been a found personally responsible for the violation of FERA.
In the opinion of the Director of Enforcement the Company, being a
juridical person, is also to be charged although only the above named
two ex-directors were personally involved in the violation and there is
every possibility that moneys were directly realized by both of them.
The penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed on the Company is contested and
matter is pending. No provision is made in accounts as in the opinion
of the Directors, the Company is not required to pay penalty.
5. The Company has been discharged from the purview of SICA by
Hon'ble BIFR vide an order dated 12 th May 2011.
6 In the opinion of the Board, all of the assets other than fixed
assets and non-current investments, have a value on realization in the
ordinary course of business at least equal to the amount at which they
are stated. The provisions of all known and determined liabilities are
adequate and not in excess of the amount reasonably necessary.
7 Debtors, Creditors and loans & Advances, deposits & other accounts
are subject to confirmations and reconciliation. Consequential
adjustment thereof, if any, will be given effect into the books of
accounts in the year of such adjustment.
8. The Company has licensed out its soap plant to M/s Nova Oleochem
Ltd., an associate Concern.
9. Appointment of Company Secretary
The financial statements have not been authenticated by a Company
secretary as required by the provisions of Section 215 (2A) of the Act
as the Company is in the process of the appointing a whole time company
secretary as required by the provisions of Section 383 A of the
Act.Compliance Certificate by practicing Company Secretary has been
obtained by the Company for Financial Year 2011 - 2012.
10. The company was mainly engaged in the business of Manufacturing
and Processing in Vegetable oil and Allied Products in the year.
Therefore all the operation s of the company are considered as single
segment for the purpose of As 17 on "Segment Reporting" issued by
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
11. In pursuance of AS 28 on impairment of assets issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the company has undertaken
summary overview of the assets held by it and is of the view that no
asset requires provision for impairment.
12. CURRENT TAX
The taxable income of the company being lower than the book profit as
per the Income Tax Act, 1961, the company has provided for Minimum
Alternate Tax (MAT) on its income. MAT credit entitlement has not been
carried forward as a matter of prudence.
DEFERRED TAX
The Company has substantial unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward
business losses and long term capital loss under the Income Tax Act,
1961. The part of these losses pertains the period prior to eligible
eight year period which has been carried forward pursuant to the
application made by the company to the Director General of Income Tax
(Administrator), New Delhi on 11/09/1996, for exemption from
applicability from Section 72 of the Income Tax Act,1961, as per the
recommendation of the BIFR while sanctioning the reh abilitation
scheme. The application is still pending before the concerned
authority.
The Company has made provision for net deferred asset in respect of
eligible unabsorbed losses/depreciation as it is confident of
generating sufficient future income based on its future plans. The net
deferred tax assets including related credit on the long term capital
loss and business losses prior to last eight assessment years have not
been recognized in these accounts on the prudent basis. This is in
accordance with AccountingStandard22"Accounting forTaxesonIncome"
issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
13. Disclosure pursuant to Accounting Standard - 15 'Employee
Benefits'
i. Contribution to Provident Fund
The Companies contribution to Statutory Provident Fund is charged to
the Statement of Profit and Loss under the head Contribution to
Provident Fund is Rs.59,898/-(PY Rs. 44,736/-).
ii. Gratuity / Leave Salary
The gratuity and leave encashment liability are charged to Profit &
Loss Account through accruing liabilities based on the assumption that
such benefits are payable to the employees at the end of the accounting
year. The Company during the year provided Rs. 53,712/-(PY: Rs.
27,695/-) towards gratuity and Rs.80,765/- (PY: Rs.90,001/ -) towards
leave salary.
The Company has accounted for payments to temporary staff under the
head Temporary staff Expenses/Sales Promotions expenses. No retirement
benefits have been provided on the same as none of the employees are
eligible for the same.
14. The financial statements for the year ended 31st March, 2011 have
been prepared as per than applicable, Pre -revised Schedule VI to the
Act. Consequent to the notification of revised Schedule VI, the
financial statements for the year ended 31st March, 2012 have been
prepared as per revised Schedule VI an d accordingly the previous
year's figures have also been regrouped/re-classified to confirm to
this year's classification. The adoption of revised Schedule VI for the
previous year does not impact recognition and measurement principal
followed in preparation of financial statement, however it
significantly impacts the presentation and disclosures made in
financial statements.
Mar 31, 2011
1. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES NOT PROVIDED FOR:
a. MSEB dues not acknowledged by the Company since reliefs and
concessions given to units referred to BIFR as per the package of the
Maharashtra State Government have to be granted to the Company. As per
letter dated 15.4.2002 issued by MSEB after mutual discussions, the
Company had to receive an amount of Rs 4308.75 from MSEB. Whereas as
per letter dated 15.7.2002, MSEB has demanded that the Company pays an
amount of Rs 1037605.75 to MSEB. The Company has asked MSEB to arrive
at the correct amount after mutual discussions and as required under
the Maharashtra State Government''s order dated 16.11.96. Hon''ble AAIFR
videon order dated 14.12.06 has directed MSEB to implement the order of
the State Government dated 16.11.96 & grant the necessary relief to the
Company within three weeks from the date of the said order. MSEB
approached the Bombay High Court against the order of AAIFR and claimed
an amount of Rs.68,80,389 from the company including interest and
penalty upto the date of filing its petition. The Hon able High Court
on 4th June, 2008, directed that an amount of Rs 60 Lakhs be placed
with MSEB pending the final disposal of the matter. Against this MSEB
was required to give a Bank Guarantee to the High Court. In a Petition
filedby the co, the Hon able Supreme Court directed to the High Court
to expedite the hearing.
b. Penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Previous Year Rs. 10 Lakhs) levied under
FERA (Refer Note No.5)
2. The Company''s Factory is now situated at Dheku (Developing
Industrial Area). In the Opinion of the Management, the provisions of
Employees State Insurance Act, 1946 are therefore, note applicable to
the Company.
3. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MAHARASHTRA
UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 TO THE COMPANY FOR CARRYING
ON ULTRA VIRES ACTIVITIES
The Company had received a show cause notice from Registrar of
Companies, Maharashtra for violation of Sec. 13 of the Companies Act,
1956 in the period prior to March 1991. The then Managing Director of
the Company Mr. Ramniklal Sheth and two other other Ex- Directors Mr.
B. F. Jhaveri and Mr. C.A. Mehta were carrying on the business in
Diamond in the name of the Company. The Department of Company Affairs
has concluded that the activities of carrying on such business is
ultravires and such opinion is formed after investigation of the
records and documents of the Company, under Section 209 A of the
Companies Act, 1956.
4. PENALTY OF RS.10 LAKH IMPOSED BY SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
UNDER FOREIGN EXCHAGE REGULATION ACT, 1973.
Office of the Special Director of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act) issued show cause notice to the Company and two
erstwhile Directors i.e. Mr.R.A. Sheth and Mr.C.A.Metha for violation
of Section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 38(1) & (2) of the FERA
Act 1973. This violation is for non-realization of the export proceeds
of Rs. 1.11 crores in respect of export of Diamonds and Rs.64.51 lakhs
for export of Methyl Esters during Feb. 1989 to Feb. 1990 when
erstwhile Directors Mr. R.A. Sheth and Mr. C.A.Metha were in charge of
the affairs of the Company.
The Enforcement Directorate has imposed penalties of Rs. 40 Lakhs each
on the said two responsible ex-Directors as they have been a found
personally responsible for the violation of FERA.
In the opinion of the Director of Enforcement the Company, being a
juridical person, is also to be charged although only the above named
two ex-directors were personally involved in the violation and there is
every possibility that moneys were directly realized by both of them.
The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the Company is contested and
matter is pending. No provision is made in accounts as in the opinion
of the Directors, the Company is not required to pay penalty.
5. The Company has been discharged from the purview of SICK INDUSTRIES
COMPANY''S ACT by Hon''ble BIFR vide an order dated 12th May 2011.
In the Opinion of the Management, the company was a going concern as on
31st March, 2010 and books of account have been prepared on that basis
accordingly.
6. In the opinion of the Board of Directors, the current assets, loans
and advances are stated at value realisable in the ordinery course of
business except otherwise stated. The provisions of all known and
determined liabilities are adequte and not in excess of the amount
reasonably necessary.
7. Debtors, Creditors and loans & Advances, deposits & other accounts
are subject to confirmations. Debit and Credit balances under the above
heads are shown as per books of accounts and are subject to
confirmation and reconciliation. Consequential adjustment there of, if
any, will be given effect into the books of accounts in the year of
such adjustment.
8. The Company has licensed out its soap plant to M/s Nova Oleochem
Ltd., an associate Concern.
9. The Company has not received any intimation regarding the status
under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 and
hence the discloure requirement in this regards as per Schedule VI to
the Companies Act, 1956, could not be given.
10. The Company was mainly engaged in the business of processing, and
trading in Vegetable oil Allied Products in the year. Therefore all the
operation of the company are considered as single segment for the
purpose of As 17 on "segment Reporting" issued by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India.
11. Earning Per Share:
In accordance with Accounting Standard 20- Earning per Share prescribed
by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the computation of
earning per share is set out below:
The Company does not have any dilutive potential equity shares.
Consequently the basic and diluted earning per share of the Company
remain the same.
12. CURRENT TAX:
The taxable income of the company being lower than the book profit as
per the Income Tax Act, 1961, the company has provided for Minimum
Alternate Tax(MAT) on its income.
DEFERRED TAX :
As the company has substantial unabsorbed depreciation and carried
forward Business losses under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is unlikely
to have taxable income in the foreseeable future, the net deferred tax
assets including related credit for the year have not been recognized
in these accounts on the prudent basis. This is in accordance with
Accounting Standard 22 "Accounting for Taxes on Income" issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
13. In pursuance of AS 28 on impairment of assets issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the company has undertaken
summary overview of the assets held by it and is of the view that no
asset requires provision for impairment.
The management is of the view that net recoverable value of the plants
are more than the carrying value of the plants and hence there is no
impairment of asset which needs to be provided in books of accounts.
14. Previous period figures are regrouped and rearranged wherever
necessary.