HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation needs to be added to the current year's depreciation, and once it takes the character of current year depreciation, it becomes eligible for set-off against income from other sources as per Section 72(1) of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, had business losses and unabsorbed depreciation from previous assessment years (2018-19 and 2019-20). For AY 2021-22, the assessee had income from other sources and claimed set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against this income.
What were the issues?
Whether brought forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set-off against income from other sources.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Estate & Finance Ltd.3 citing111 ITR 119 · 1978 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 15.01.2025 which is arising out of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22 framed on 16.11.2022 by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru.
The only grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of CPC, Bengaluru of not allowing set-off of 2 brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income from other sources.
Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm having income from business. Return of income for assessment year 2021- 22 furnished on 18.01.20
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 72(1)
- 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
- Nayon Exports, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai, Piramal ChamberITA 2573/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- The Madhavpura Mercantile Co. Op. Bank… vs The ACIT, Circle-1(2), AhmedabadITA 2242/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2026AY 2017-18
- The Madhavpura Mercantile Co. Op. Bank… vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2241/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
- Aditya Cement, Behror vs ITO, BehrorITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 May 2025AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026