See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231590247

A Study on Investment Appraisal and Profitability

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

23 15,082

2 authors, including:

Thirunavukkarasu Velnampy
University of Jaffna
58 PUBLICATIONS   538 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing strategy for the likelihood View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thirunavukkarasu Velnampy on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Study on Investment Appraisal and Profitability.
Thirunavukkarasu Velnampy
Senior Lecturer
Department of Commerce
University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka.
tvnampy@yahoo.co.in

Abstract
Each organization is employing a lot of money in various projects. It’s success is depending on the
ability to generate profitability Hence the profitability and return on investment of the firm should be
assessed. Thus, present study is made to evaluate worth wild of investment employed in the Toddy
bottling project of palmyra and coconut development society of Sankani. Sophisticated and non-
sophisticated techniques can be used to appraise the project. In the present study, NPV, IRR, and PI as
well as actual and budget comparisons are made to evaluate the investments and efficiency of
management. The study revealed that Toddy bottling projects is profitable and worthwhile. But the
project fails to achieve the budgetary outcomes. Finally, some recommendations are given to keep the
project worthwhile and effectively
Key word:- Appraisal, Cost benefit, Efficiency, investment, Net present value

1.0 Introduction:

Project is an organized endeavor to accomplish a specified non-routine or low volume task.

Although projects are repetitive, they take significant amounts of time to complete and are large scale
or complex enough to be recognized and managed as separate undertakings. Generally the amount of
time that an individual or a work center is involved in a project is greater than that involved in a
typical manufacturing or service assignment. An operations person may work only with other
operations people on a project that pertains to operations, or the same person may work with a team of
people from various functions who are assigned to study and solve a problem or to perform some
other task. For example. Selecting a software package, developing a new office plan or layout, and
starting up a new manufacturing or service facility.

1.2 Project Management:

Management of a project differs in several ways from management of a typical business. The
objective of a project team is to accomplish its assigned mission and disband. Few business aim to
perform just one job and then cease to exist. Some projects may be as continuous, but the machinery
employed in the project will be replaced at the end of the life. A manager will be responsible for the
project. The project manager’s job is important and challenging. The manager is responsible for
getting work performed but often has no direct, formal authority over most of the people who perform
the work. The project manager must often rely on broader knowledge of the project and skills at

1
 negotiation and persuation to influence participants. A project manager may have the assistance of a
staff if the project is large.

The project management institute identifies six basic functions that project management must
address (Dilworth B.J. 1996)1.

1. Manage the project’s scope to define the goals and work to be done, insufficient details to

facilitate understanding and correct performance by participants.

2. Manage the human resources involved in the project.

3. Manage communications to see that the appropriate parties are informed and have sufficient

information to keep the project coordinated.

4. Manage time by planning and meeting a schedule.

5. Manage quality so that the project’s results are satisfactory.

6. Manage costs so that the project is performed at the minimum practical cost and within bud

get, if possible.

1.3 Project Evaluation:

Project evaluation takes an important role in capital expenditure decision. Normally an

organisation continuously invest its resources in new plants or machinery or any other capital assets for
expansion of its operations or replace the capital assets for its continuous operation and improving its
efficiency (Maheswari S.N.1994)2. Hence the main objective of the project evaluation is to maximize
the organisation’s profits and optimizing the return on investment. In order to achieve this objective,
the revenues can be increased or costs can be reduced. Thus, the factors which are affecting capital
investment decisions should be taken into account.

1.4 Factors to be evaluated:

It is necessary to identify those factors which, in differing degree are common to all projects
and the evaluation of which will help to determine the relative profitability of alternative proposals.
The principal factors are3:

1. the initial cost of the project.

2. the phasing of the expenditure under the project.

2
3. the estimated life of the investment.

4. the amount and timing of the resulting income.

5. the effect, if any, which the project will have upon the operation or profitability of the rest of
the undertaking.
6. working capital required.

In general, the firms have a limited funds for capital investment, the amount of investment is
taken into account in the decision making, of which project should be chosen. The projects should be
arranged in ascending order based on the amount of capital investment.

The minimum rate of return is usually decided on the basis of the cost of capital. If the cost
of capital is given as 15% the management will not accept the project which gives the rate of return at
less then 15%.

The projects are selected on the basis of cash flow approach for assessing benefits from
capital investment. If two or more proposals are available, the proposals are ranked on the basis of
their profitability. Then the proposal which has most profitable will be chosen.

1.5 The Planning steps of capital investment:

CIMA4 identified the following steps in the process of developing a new programme of
capital investment.

1. Identification of an investment opportunity.

2. Consideration of the alternatives to the project being evaluated.
3. Acquiring relevant information
4. Detailed planning.
5. Taking the investment decision:

The identification of an investment opportunity is the most difficult part of the capital
investment process. Indeed for may business, and particularly small ones, it is the only stage.
Projects are undertaken without any form of sophisticated investment appraisal.

The different investment alternatives ought to be identified and compared. Because,

normally, there are two or more investment projects are available.

3
 Acquiring the relevant data to form the basis for an informed decision is one of the most
important aspects in practice. Large capital investments that turnout to be unprofitable can usually be
abandoned only at a substantial loss, and therefore the time and efforts spent in market research and
acquiring data about relevant costs and benefits is rarely wasted. This activity helps to focus
manager’s mind on the reality of the projections as they are once forecasting and so weed out poor
projects at an early stage before they are subjected to intensive financial secruitiny.

1.6 Methods of Evaluating investment project:

Before discussing the methods of evaluating expected capital project returns, it is necessary to
make a clear distinction between two different types of investment which are susceptible to different
methods of treatment.

1. the replace of or improvement in assets or groups of assets already in use.

2. the setting-up of completely new or self-contained projects, ie., expansion of the undertaking.

Business literature suggests a number of characteristics that should be possessed by a good

yardstick for measuring investment worth. The most important of these characteristics are listed
below (Thanopoulas, E.V. 1965)5.

1. It should summarize the merits of an investment proposal in a single figure.

2. It should facilitate comparisons between different projects.
3. It should be simple and easily understood by those who use it.
4. It should be expressed in terms compatible with company long-range objectives.

The principal yardsticks employed for measuring financial characteristics of the investment
proposal are:

1. Return on investment (ROI) or Accounting rate of return (ARR).

2. Pay back period (PBP)
3. Discounted cash flow method (DCF)
a. The net present value (NPV)
b. The internal rate of return (IRR) or DCF yield method.
c. Cost benefits analysis (CBA).

Velez and Nieto (1986)6 reported that in Colombia. Six methods for capital budgeting were
found to be in use: (1) Internal rate of return, (2) net present value, (3) benefit cost ratio, (4) annual
equivalent cost, (5) profit – investment ratio, and (6) pay back period.

4
1.6.1 Return on Investment (ROI):

Annual rate of return is a significant measure of investment worth because it relates the
amount of savings or earnings to both the amount of capital employed and to the time this capital is
in use. The rate of return from a project can be compared with the target rate which management
considers necessary to justify new investments in the business.

In simplified form, rate of return may be expressed as the ratio of annual savings or earning to
the amount of related investment. It can be computed by using any one of the following formula.

1. ARR = Average Profits

------------------------ x 100
Average Investment

2. ARR = Total Profit

----------------------- x 100
Initial Investment

3. ARR = Average Profit

----------------------- x 100
Initial Investment

In the above three formulas, the method (1) is most popular.

Hodder (1986)7 indicated that most Japanese firms used relatively simple return on
investment or pay back techniques rather than the more sophisticated DCF procedures such as NPV
and IRR. Wong kie Ann, Edward Farragher and Rupert Leung (1987)8 reported that corporations in
Malaysia and Hongkong employed the two Non-DCF methods, viz, Pay back (PBP) and Accounting
rate of return (ARR) much more widely than the DCF methods.

Simplicity and ease of understanding are often advanced as advantages gained by computing
rate of return as the ratio of annual savings to project assets. The method embodies the concept of
“net earnings” while evaluating capital investment projects which is absent in case of all other
methods.

While calculation of the rate of return ratio is simple, the determination of project investment
and savings or earnings by this method requires extensive knowledge of accounting. The variations
described above represent differing accounting procedures for allocating costs to individual years for
the purpose of measuring income and financial conditions year by year. At best these allocations are
conventional or arbitray in nature. They introduce an element of subjective judgment into the resulting
rate of return which make it very difficult to interpret.

5
 Another characteristic of the method is that it disregards the time value of money. In the rate
of return ratio, savings to be realized in future years are given the same weight as savings realized in
the first year. Hence, the method does not distinguish between projects which promise early savings
and projects in which the savings will be longer delayed. Moreover, for the same reason, the rate of
return computed by this method is not comparable with the cost of capital as quoted in the money
markets.

1.6.2. Payback Period:

The payback period is the period of time in which capital outlay is recovered from earnings or
savings. Payback is defined as “the time it takes the cash inflow from a capital investment to equal
the cash out flows, usually expressed in years”. This method show that “how long will it take to
payback its cost ? when two or more projects are available, the project with the shortest period of
payback will be selected.

The payback period is widely used as a measure of investment worth because of its seeming
simplicity. It can easily be calculated and understood by managers who lack a background in
accounting or finance. This simplicity is more apparent than real. A survey by J.H.Miller 9 indicates
that “sophisticated” measures of return such as discounted cashflow rate of return and net present
value are not as widely used as “unsophisticated” measures of return such as payout period and simple
rate of return. However, the numerous possible variations in determination of the payback figure
make its application more difficult than it is usually thought to be. Sometimes, management may
reject profitable proposals or it may accept proposals which are unprofitable. Because it does not
measure project profitability.

1.6.3. Discounted cash flow method:

Discounted cashflow rate of return and net present value are the two principal “sophisticated”
methods of evaluating investment worth. (House W.C. 1965)10. It takes into account both the time
value of money and also total profitability over a project’s life. Discounted cashflow is, therefore,
superior to both Accounting rate of return and Payback as a method of investment appraisal. DCF
technique includes Net present value (NPV), Internal rate of return (IRR), and Cost benefit ratio (C/B
ratio).

When the present value method is used, cash outlays and cash proceeds for each alternative
capital investment proposal are discounted to the present, using the firm’s cost of capital as a discount
rate11. the difference between the present value of the proceeds and the present value of the capital
outlays is the net present value of the investment12 . The present value will be calculated as follows.

6
 PV = 1
------
(1+r)n

Where r = rate of return/cost of capital

n = number of years.

If the present value is positive, an investment is considered desirable, on the other hand, if the
net present value is negative, then the investment should not be undertaken (Ezra Solomon, 1963)13.

Merrett and skyes14 define the discounted cash flow rate of return as the rate of interest which
discounts future cash flows generated by an investment down to a present value which exactly equals
the cost of that investment. The discounted cash flow rate of return is “the maximum rate of interest
that could be paid for the capital employed over the life of an investment without loss on the
project”15. It is computed as follows.

IRR = A + X (B-A)
--------
X-Y

where A = one rate of return

B = other rate of return
X = the NPV at rate A
Y = the NPV at rate B

Cost-benefits is a tool which modern financial analysts adopt before undertaking any financial
operation or commercial activity. Cost-benefit analysis can be shortly defined as, an attempt to
quantify the social advantages and disadvantages of alternative courses of action in terms of a
common monetary unit. The cost benefit analysis is an aid to allocating government resources and it
is aimed at giving the best advice to decision takers and research and development appraisal 16.

According to Bhimani (1996)17 as a possible consequence of much adverse critism leveled

against Non-DCF measures during 1970 s and early 1980s, the use of DCF techniques became more
widespread in U.K., Cherukuri U.R. (2004)18 indicated that DCF methods play an important role in
Korean industry. A vast majority (85%) of respondents chose DCF techniques as their first choice,
and the IRR is the most widely applied evaluation technique. 90% of the responding firms use it as
one of their capital budgeting tools.

Keeping the above literature the present study is made to assess the investment employed in
toddy bottling project of palmyra and coconut development co-operative society located in Sankanai,
Jattna district , Sri Lanka by using DCF techniques.

7
1.7 Objective of the study:
The Objectives of the study are:
1. To assess the investment employed in toddy bottling project with the DCF techniques.
2. To identify the decision making power of the management.
3. To identify the costs and benefits incurred in the project.
4. To suggest the management of project to make suitable alterations.

1.8 Data Collection:

Secondary data was collected from the reports and accounting books of the cooperative
society. The years of 1990-2000 was considered for the DCF techniques and only last five years were
considered for comparisons between budget and actual.

1.9 Hypothesis of the Study:

The following hypotheses have been taken for the present study.

1. The investment employed in the project is worth while.

2. Cost benefit ratio of the project is effective and appreciable.
3. An effective decision making power can be noticed among the management.

1.10 Process of Data:

The toddy bottling project was actually established on 1973. From the date onwards it was
undertaken by Sankanai MPCS. On 1979 it was entrusted to Palmyra and coconut development
cooperative society. Since the data represent the period of 1979-1995 were completely destroyed due
to the historical displacement caused by the war situation in Jaffna it was not able to reach the actual
data for the analysis. But only forecasted date were receivable. Therefore DCF techniques are applied
for last 10 years and comparisons are made for the period of 95/96-99/2000. Thus the project was
began. with the initial capital of 12 20 000. This capital includes the followings19.
1. Cost of capital of equipment Rs. 4,00,000
2. Cost of 100 000 bottles Rs. 4,00,000
3. Cost of vehicle which is used in the project Rs. 4,00,000
4. Cost of Furniture Rs. 20,000
--------------------
Total cost of Capital Rs. 12,20,000
---------------------

The capital costs, additional capital which is incurred for additional purchase of new 2000
bottles every year, export, operating production costs, and tax are considered as the cash outflows
where as the sales income form the toddy of bottle is the cash inflow. Tax is paid on one year accrual

8
basis. Discounting rate of the project is chosen as 15% which represents the interest from the bank
deposit as an opportunity cost. Hence the project is evaluated with the NPV by using above cash
inflow and cash outflows.

Table 1 NPV of the Toddy Bottling Project:

Year Cashflow Additional Export Production Tax Net D/F PV

Capital costs & Costs Cashflow 15%
Operating
Costs
0 (1220 000) - - - - (1220 000) 1 (1220 000)
1 15 56 200 - 74 629 616 305 - 865 266 0.87 752781
2 85 11 90 (8000) 175 728 670 671 88703 (91912) 0.76 (69853)
3 12 38 955 (8000) 219 206 589 992 51071 370 686 0.66 244653
4 14 04 149 (8000) 103 702 659 679 74348 558 420 0.57 318299
5. 17 14 290 (8000) 125 588 848 000 96638 636 064 0.50 318032
6. 17 25 000 (8000) 158 850 887 500 120000 550 650 0.43 236 779
7. 17 53 133 (8000) 172 886 932 699 116500 523048 0.37 193528
8. 17 81 418 (8000) 186 922 977 898 121132 487314 0.33 160 814
9. 18 13 418 (8000) 200 958 10 28 747 125765 449948 0.28 1 25 985
10. 18 45 123 (8000) 214 944 10 79 596 130398 412135 0.25 103034
11. - - - - 135031 (135031) 0.21 (28356)
11 35 696

Source: Computed from Secondary data:

The Present value of cash in flow exceeds the present value of cash out flows by Rs.11 35 696
which means that the project earns a DCF yield in excess of 15%.

Hence the toddy bottling project is profitable and worthwhile. Further, to assess the projects
investment, IRR was computed from the above table, 40% discounting rate was taken to reach the
negative NPV, thus the NPV was 79351 at the rate of return 40%.

Computed IRR of the project was 38.38% say 38%. NPV will be zero at the IRR. It is better
to use the rate of return below the IRR. Since 15% cost of capital is used in the toddy bottling project,
the profitability of the project would be high which will help to keep the project concrete. Therefore
the hypothesis (1) is accepted.

1.1 Cost –Benefit Analysis of toddy bottled:

The objective of cost benefit analysis is to quantify the net benefit of the project. It helps to
share the limited found of the organisation in a useful way. Therefore it is called as “cost efficiency

9
analysis”. The cost benefit ratio (C/B%) of a bottle of toddy is derived by discounting the costs and
benefits of the project/firm, using the project’s cost of capital as a discount rate. Thus the costs and
benefits incurred in the project should be viewed. The main benefit of the project is the sales income
of bottle of toddy and the costs are listed below.

Organizational Expenses:

1. Purchasing cost of toddy.

2. The cost of bottle cap.
3. Wages and salaries of the workers.
4. EPF and ETF payment.
5. Factory maintenance costs.
6. Damaging bottle during the production.
7. Repairing cost of equipment.
8. Other operating costs.
9. Sales and Distribution costs:
a. Turn over tax
b. Export costs.

The following external costs, other than the organizational costs, are incurred in respect of the
project.

1. Unpleasant condition of the people surroundings to the factory. For example: Bad smell
of the toddy during the manufacturing process.

2. Consequences in the family of consumers.

3. Fall of sales price in other type of alcohol.

From the above costs and benefits the C/B ratio has been computed and summarized in table 2.

Table 2 shows the present value of benefits and costs, as well as benefits cost ratio B/C ratio was
2.25 at the first year (1991) and it decrease to 0.90 in the second year. The reason for it is the loss of
project due to the inefficiency of the employees, hired after the displacement and inefficient of the
management. But after the second year (1992) B/C ratio was in a smooth trend viz between 1.0 – 2.0.

10
Table:2 Cost Benefits Analysis of toddy bottling project.
Year Benefits Costs Discounting PV of PV of B/C %
Factor 15% Benefits Costs
1 15 56 200 690 934 0.87 13 53 894 60 11 12 2.25
2 8 51 190 943 102 0.76 646 904 7 16 757 0.90
3 12 38 955 8 68 269 0.66 8 17 710 5 73 057 1.43
4 14 04 149 8 45 729 0.57 8 00 365 48 20 65 1.66
5 17 14 290 10 74 226 0.50 8 57 145 53 91 13 1.59
6 17 25 000 11 74 350 0.43 7 47 750 50 49 71 1.47
7 17 53 133 12 30 085 0.37 6 48 659 45 51 31 1.42
8 17 81 266 12 93 952 0.33 5 87 818 42 70 04 1.38
9 18 13 418 13 63 470 0.28 5 07 757 38 17 71 1.33
10 18 45 123 14 32 988 0.25 4 61 281 3 58 247 1.29
74 23 283 44 66 171 1.66
Source: Computed from secondary data.

The average B/C ratio for last ten years, was 1.66. Hence it can be concluded that the project
is running effectively and the hypothesis(2) is accepted.

The cooperative society sells a bottle of toddy at the rate of Rs.15. Thus level of output (in
number of bottles) and the present value of benefits and costs are given in table 3.
Table 3 The Number of bottles Produced:
Year Level of outputs PV of Benefits PV of Costs
(number of bottles)
1 103747 1353894 601112
2 56746 646904 716757
3 82597 817710 573057
4 93610 800365 482065
5 114286 857145 539113
6 115000 741750 504971
7 116876 648659 455131
8 118751 587818 427004
9 120895 507757 381771
10 123008 461281 358247
Source: Budgets of Cooperative.

11
Figure:1

Present value of Benefit & cost of toddy bottling project

1600000

1400000

1200000
PV of Benefits & Cost

1000000

PV of Benefits
800000
PV of Costs

600000

400000

200000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Level of output

According to the table 3 and figure1 the PV of coats is higher than the PV of benefits in year 2. In
rest of the periods PV of benefits is higher than the PV of costs. The gap between two lines indicates
the area of PV of benefits over the PV and costs.

1.12 Budgetary and Actual Results:

In order to test the ability of management decision, the budgetary and actual results are
compared and variances are computed. Thus the comparison between budgetary and actual on sales,
costs, and net profits is made in the present study.

12
Table: 4 Comparison of budgetary and actual results:
Accounting Years
Variables
Code 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/2000
A 17 01 781 8 51 190 5 71 190 8 81 725 13 63 305
Sales B 15 56 200 8 51 190 12 38 955 14 04 149 17 14 290
C 145 581 - (667 765) (522 424) (350 985)
A 11 14 226 8 46 399 6 21 792 7 41 287 8 63 107
Costs B 6 96 934 8 46 399 8 09 198 7 63 378 9 37 588
C (417 292) - 1 87 406 22 091 1 10 481
A 5 85 052 2 24 561 87 496 1 41 947 4 09 062
Net Profit B 6 86 752 2 24 561 5 39 215 5 44 129 6 20 702
C (101 700) - (451 719) (40 21 82) (2 11 640)

Source: Reports of Cooperative society

A = Actual
B = Budget
C = Variance
The table 4 shows the budgetary and actual results in respect of sales, costs and net profit.
There is no provision for budget in the year of 96/97 due to the displacement. They have considered
actual results as the budgets and therefore no deviation between the two. Although, there was a
favourable deviation in sales in the year of 95/96, an adverse deviation can be noticed during the last
three years. In respect of net profit, there was an adverse deviation, even though the project enjoy
profitability. On the other hand, favourable deviation has been arrived regards costs in the years of
97/98, 98/99 and 99/2000. On the whole, both budgetary and actual results are not in uniformity and
so the awareness of management in deciding and achieving target should be increased.

In a nutshell, there is a much difference between budgetary and actual results. The followings
may be the reasons for the differences.

1. Lack of rigid control in achieving budgets.

2. Fail to take in account the actual market opportunity for each period.
3. Fail to forecast the changes in expenses/costs.
4. Inability to make effective decisions.

13
 From the table 4, the co-efficient of correlation was computed to test the deviation between
budget and actual results. Thus, computed co-efficient of correlations are: Sales = 0.06,
Costs=(0.06), Net profit=0.097.

Above co-efficient of correlation (r) indicates that there is a high degree of deviation between
budgetary and actual results. Therefore the last hypothesis is rejected.

1.13 Suggestions:

The following suggestions are made based on the study.

Since there is a high degree of difference between budget and actual results, awareness of
management should be increased. For this purpose it is better to approach an export knowledgeable
consultant in the field.

A rigid control should be made in achieving budgetary results. In this way, the reasons for
the variances should be discovered and then corrective action should be made.

Actual market opportunity and the changes to be arisen in costs should be taken in to account,
then feasible budget can be prepared.

In order to increase the ability to make decision, workshop, and other training programmes
can be organized with the help of resource persons and performance related pay may be provided for
the effective decisions.

1.14 Conclusions:

From the above analysis, it is apparent that the toddy bottling project is profitable and
worthwhile. Management of the project fails to achieve the budgetary results. Even though decision
making power of management was poor, the NPV, IRR and benefit cost ratio shows the project as
worthwhile.

14
 Foot Notes:

1. Dilworth, B.J.,(1996) Operations Management, 2nd Edition, Mc Graw-Hill company, Inc.,

2 Maheswari S.N.1994) Management Accounting & Financial Control, 9th edition, sultan chand
& sons.
3 The Institute of cost and workers accountants, the profitable use of capital in industry, India,
1965.
4 CIMA,(2000) Management Accounting Fundamentals, CIMA study text, BPP publishing.
5 Thanopoulas, E.V.,(1965) Financial Analysis Techniques for equipment replacement
decisions, National Association of Accountants, PP 11-13.
6 Velez, I and Nieto, G; Investment Decision making practices in Colombia; A survey
interfaces, 1986, 16: PP 60-65.
7 Hodder, J.E., (1986) Evaluation of manufacturing investments: A comparison of US and
Japanese practices. Financial Management 15: 17-24.
8 Wong Kie Ann, Farragher, E.W. and Leung, R.K.C. (1987) Capital Investment practices: A
survey of Large Corporations in Malaysia, Singapore and Hongkong, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 4: 112-123.
9 Miller, J.H, (1960) A Glimpse at calculating and using return on investment, N.A.A. Bulletin,
Vol, X LI, No 10, June, PP. 71-75.
10 House W.C. (1965) Sensitivity Analysis in Making Capital Investment Decisions, National
Association of Accountants P. 25
11 Harold Bierman Jr; (1963) Topics in cost accounting and Decisions; New York; Mc Graw –
Hill book company, Inc. P 122.
12 House W.C; Op. cit, P.27.
13 Ezra Solomon (1963) The theory of Financial Management, New York; Colombia University
Press, P.132.
14 Merrett A.J., and Allen Sykes (1963) The Finance and Analysis of Capital Projects, New
York, John Wiley and Sons, P.15.
15 National Association of Accountant (1959) Return on capital As a Guide to Managerial
Decision, Research report, New York.
16 Junes, P.M.S., (1972) The use of Cost Benefit Analysis as an aid to Allocating Government
Resources for Research & Development, In wolfe, J.N; (eds) Cost Benefit and Cost
Effectiveness; George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
17 Bhimani, A. (Ed.) 1996, Management Accounting: European perspectives, Oxford; Oxford
University press.
18 Cherukuri U.R; (2004) GITAM Journal of Management Vol, 2, No.1, PP: 25-43.
19 Report and Annual Budget of the Cooperative Society.

15

View publication stats