THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. BANASKANTHA DIST. OIL SEEDS GROWERS UNION LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1042/2018HC GujaratGJHC24049967201821 August 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by a previous decision of a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2013] 354 ITR 244 (Guj). Based on this precedent, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The unabsorbed depreciation, as allowed by the ITAT, was therefore upheld. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a coordinate bench, the High Court would follow that precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the Tax Appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, has filed an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, dated March 20, 2018. The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The dispute revolves around the ITAT's decision to allow unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 38,01,74,402 to be carried forward beyond the stipulated eight-year period. The assessee is M/s. Banaskantha Dist. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT passed an order which is now under challenge before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following question of law: 1. Whether the ITAT has erred on the facts and in law in allowing the unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 38,01,74,402/= beyond 8 years as per provisions of Section 32(2) of the I.T. Act? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision appears to be based on a precedent. Revenue: The Revenue's contention, as indicated by the question of law, is that the ITAT erred in allowing unabsorbed depreciation beyond the eight-year period prescribed under Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“the Tribunal”

Undisputably, the issue is covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2013] 354 ITR 244 [Guj].

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash

More judgments on Section 32(2)

All 321 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →