THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. STEELCO GUJARAT LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal were no longer res integra. It noted that these issues were squarely covered by the Court's own decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj). The Court also observed that the ITAT had relied on this very decision when dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The ratio decidendi is that the law laid down in General Motors India (P) Ltd. governs the present case, allowing the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated December 21, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2008-2009 and concerns the assessee, Steelco Gujarat Ltd. The core of the dispute is the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue is aggrieved by this allowance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law and facts by allowing the assessee's claim to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09? 2. Whether the ITAT erred by allowing the claim without appreciating that the language of Section 32(2) is clear and unambiguous, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, was prospective from April 1, 2002? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight assessment years, contravening Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, effective April 1, 1997? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's claim by relying on the decision in General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj), without appreciating that the amendment to Section 32(2) constituted 'casus omissus' as held in S.P. Gupta v. President of India and ACIT Vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd.? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years against the profits of assessment year 2008-09. They contended that the provisions of Section 32(2) and its amendments, particularly the Finance Act, 2001, and Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, restrict such carry forward and set off. The Revenue also argued that the ITAT's reliance on General Motors India (P) Ltd. was misplaced, especially in light of the 'casus omissus' principle established in Supreme Court decisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 836 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus STEELCO GUJARAT LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 13/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Act, 1961 (for short the “Act”) at the instance of Revenue and it is directed against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “A” Bench, Ahmedabad in the ITA No.328/AHD/2015 for the assessment year 2008 2009. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal: “2(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carry
forward
and
setoff
unabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 199596 to 19992000 against the profit of assessment year Page 1 of 3
C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER 200809?” (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, learned ATAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carry forward and setoff unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 199596 to 19992000 against the profits of assessment year 200809 without appreciating the fact that the language of the subsection (2) of Section 32 is clear and unambiguous and the amendment in the said section by Finance Act, 2001 was prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 199596 to 1999 2000 beyound the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1st April, 1997? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the departments appeal and allowing the assessee's claim of carry forward and setoff unabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 199596 to 19992000 against the profits of assessment year 200809 by relying on the decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj) without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has given a construction to the language of the amendment to the provision of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act which actually amount to “casus omissus” as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Gupta v. President of India [AIR 1982 SC 149] & ACIT Vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd. Appeal (Crl) 142 of 19947 dated 16.09.2003.” 4. Mr.Varun Patel, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly pointed out that the issues raised in the present appeal are no Page 2 of 3
C/TAXAP/836/2019 ORDER longer resintegra as those are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj). 5. We also take the notice of the fact that the very same decision has been referred and relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, and thereby, confirming the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) GIRISH Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 32(2)
- Karnavati Rolling Mills Private Limited… vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Sree Kumar Textiles Private Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3437/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Vts Tf Air Systems Private Limited… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)(1)…ITTPA 710/BANG/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2022-2023
- Gluhend India Private Limited, Delhi vs DCIT - 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 271/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Shiv Vijay Processors Private… vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2 1 3, SuratITA 1241/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026