THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. M/S GUJARAT LEASE FINANCE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/728/2019HC GujaratGJHC24065957201902 December 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra, meaning it has already been decided. The Court specifically referred to its own prior decision in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj). For the reasons set out in that earlier judgment, the High Court concluded that the appeal fails. The operative direction is that the appeal is summarily dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, has appealed against an order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2009-10, with the corresponding accounting period being 2008-09. The core of the dispute involves the ITAT's decision to allow the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 against the income of Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee is M/s Gujarat Lease Finance Ltd. The appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 to be set off in A.Y. 2009-10? (Question of law and fact, concerning the application of depreciation provisions). 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal, by allowing such set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 in A.Y. 2009-10, has rendered the amendment brought in Section 32(2) by the Finance Act 1996 as otiose? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation and effect of statutory amendments). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The ITAT's order, which allowed the set-off, is implicitly supported by the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argues that the ITAT erred in allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier assessment years into A.Y. 2009-10 and that this decision makes the amendment to Section 32(2) by the Finance Act 1996 otiose. The Revenue relies on the proposed substantial questions of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 32(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/728/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 728 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus M/S GUJARAT LEASE FINANCE LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 02/12/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By   this   appeal   under   section   260A   of   the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Revenue has challenged the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad Bench   ‘C’,   Ahmedabad   in   ITA   No.52/Ahd/2017   by proposing the following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in   law   and   on   facts   in   allowing   the unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000­01 and 2001­02 to set off in A.Y. 2009­10? [B] Whether   the   Appellate   Tribunal   by allowing   such   set   off   of   unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000­01 and A.Y. 2001­02 in  A.Y.  2009­10  has  rendered  the  amendment Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/728/2019 ORDER brought in section 32(2) by the Finance Act 1996 as otiose?” 2. The   assessment   year   is   2009­10   and   the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2008­09. It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same stands concluded by   a   decision   of   this   court   in   the   case   of General   Motors   India   P.   Ltd.   v.   Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj). 3. Under the circumstances, for the reasons set out in the decision of this court in the case of General   Motors   India   P.   Ltd.   v.   Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), no question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order   passed   by   the   Tribunal.   The   appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly, summarily, dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2

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 →