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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1348/2018HC DelhiDLHC01261612201830 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court 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 arose for its consideration. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the depreciation carry forward was made by the High Court; rather, the dismissal was based on precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the respondent, Central Electronics. The appeals challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core issue revolved around the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years, following an amendment by the Finance Act, 2001. The Revenue sought to appeal the ITAT's order. The High Court noted a delay in re-filing the appeals, which was condoned.

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) The Revenue contended that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, restricted the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years. The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the assessee (Central Electronics) in opposition to the Revenue's appeal. The High Court also did not record any specific arguments from either side regarding the interpretation of the Finance Act, 2001, in relation to the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, beyond stating the issue itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Finance Act, 2001

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 Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.10.2024 15:41 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →