Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"We present here our results in 121 patients, who have been followed up for at least 6 months. The longest follow up is 12 months.
The patients are divided into the following four groups :
1.

Myopia less than 5 dioptres :

15 cases
2.

Myopia between 6 and 10D :

44 cases
3.

Myopia between 11D and 15D :

44 cases
4.

Myopia between 15D and above :

18 cases It will be seen that we have chosen more cases in the higher myopia groups. We did this because it was thought that an undercorrection in a high myopia will lead to less dissatisfaction, than in the low myopia group. Our approach has been amply justified by the practical experience of the patients.

The Myopia corrections results :

We have lumped the total number of the myopic dioptres to be correct in each group, and the results actually obtained have been kept as sum total of all the cases. The results are as follows :
Group 1 (Myopia less than 5D)   No. of cases Total No. of dioptres 55.5 Undercorrection 15.5 (27.92%) Overcorrection 0.75 (1.75%) Group 2 (Myopia 6 to 10D)   No. of cases Total No. of dioptres Undercorrection 61 D(I9.42%) Overcorrection

5.5(1.75%) Group 3 (Myopia 11D to 15D)   No. of cases Total No. of dioptres Undercorrection 91(17.94%) Overcorrection 11(1.36%) Group 4 (Myopia 15D)   No. of cases Total No. of dioptres Undercorrection 54(19.54%) Overcorrection 0.75 (0.25%) From the figures given above, it is obvious that the percentage of undercorrection and overcorrection is almost the same in all the groups."

"(a) any scientific research which may lead to or facilitate an extension of that business or, as the case may be, all businesses of that class;."

In the present case, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee by stating that the machinery acquired was new and the activity of the assessee was to facilitate it to the use of stranger machine with a sense and thorough familiarisation.

From the above observation of the assessing officer it is beyond any doubt that the machinery was new and was not in much use, the research can be done only for new things and not for existing. In the present case, the assessee has choosen the cases in higher myopia groups and examined as much as 121 patients who were followed at least upto 6 months and maximum for 12 months. The records of the patients were kept and compared with other patients. As such there was extension of knowledge because the extension of knowledge means the increase in the information regarding a particular subject. In the instant case, the experiments made by the assessee on various patients definitely added to the knowledge in respect of technique of reducing plus (+) and minus (-) numbers. The experiment of handling case after case and gradual improvement in technique was definitely a step for the extension of knowledge. In the present case, the change in the shape of cornea was done with the help of excimer laser machine and as such it cannot be said that the machinery was not used by the assessee. From the above facts, it is clear that the scientific research as undertaken by the assessee was related to its business and the assessing officer has not doubted that there was an increase in assessee's business. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee, which has rightly been allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after appreciating the facts in right perspective.