PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 02 vs. CENTRAL ELECTRONICS

ITA-1348/2018HC Delhi2018:DHC:832530 November 20182 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeals concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years, in light of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, is covered against the Revenue by the court's own previous judgment in Pr. CIT vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 569 (Delhi). Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the respondent, Central Electronics. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The appeals challenge the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years, following an amendment by the Finance Act, 2001. The High Court of Delhi was considering these appeals. The appeals were filed with a delay of 59 days in re-filing, which was condoned by the court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward beyond eight years in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Central Electronics). However, it refers to a prior judgment of the same court that is considered to be against the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation is restricted beyond eight years due to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001. The Revenue relied on the amendment to support its position.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-20 & 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITAl 347/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus CENTRAL ELECTRONICS Respondent . Through: + 348/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 02 Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus CENTRAL ELECTRONICS Respondent Through: CORAM: ^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI ORDER % 30.11.2018 CM APPL. 49885/2018 in ITA 1347/2018 CM APPL. 49886/2018 in ITA 1348/2018 Delay in re-filing of 59 days is condoned for the reasons stated in the applications. Applications are allowed. ITA 1347/2018 & ITA 1348/2018 The issue raised in the present appeals relating to carry forward of 2018:DHC:8325-DB

r unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years in view of the subsequent amendment by Finance Aet, 2001 is eovered against the Revenue by judgment of this court in Pr. CIT vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. (2018) 400ITR 569 (Delhi). Accordingly, we hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present appeals. The appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2018/mj 2018:DHC:8325-DB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →