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

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1041/2018HC GujaratGJHC24049965201821 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). In that precedent, the Court had dealt with a similar issue concerning the carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation. Based on this binding precedent, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, specifically the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, has filed this appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, dated March 20, 2018. The appeal concerns assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The dispute revolves around the ITAT's decision to allow the carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation. The amounts in dispute are Rs. 38,01,74,402 for AY 2001-2002 and Rs. 3,25,51,908 for AY 2002-2003. The procedural history is that the Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's order and has approached the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 38,01,74,402 for AY 2001-2002 and Rs. 3,25,51,908 for AY 2002-2003 beyond the period of 8 years, as per the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Contentions of the Revenue: The Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in allowing the unabsorbed depreciation beyond the prescribed period of 8 years, citing Section 32(2) of the Act. Contentions of the Assessee: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, implicitly supports the assessee's claim for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation.

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 →