COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, P.KULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/28/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074976200607 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision. The court relied on its own prior judgment in a similar case, which had attained finality.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department appealed a decision by the ITAT that allowed the assessee to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation. The department argued that unabsorbed depreciation should be part of the succeeding year's depreciation and not carried forward if the return was not filed within the time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward if the original return was filed late, and if it forms part of the succeeding year's depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(2),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

IN T (201) Commission M/s Haryan CORAM:

Present:

LISA GILL

1.

04.08.2005 Bench ‘A’, appeal reads 2. relief to the Court in C.I was filed wi challenging by present a

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

ner of Income Tax, Panchkula. Versus

na Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE L HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AL

**** Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kashik Advocate a Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate fo

**** L, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed passed by learned Income-tax A Chandigarh. Question of law a s as under: “On the facts and in the circums ITAT was right in law in allowing depreciation of the earlier years, form part of the depreciation of t depreciation for the succeeding y carried forward as the valid ret allowed under Section 139(1) of t Learned counsel for appellant e respondent-assessee on the b I.T. Vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd., (2 ith the averment that an appeal h said verdict. It is further inform appellant/Department impugning AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-28-2006 Date of Decision:-07.04.2025

……Appellant ……Respondent LISA GILL LOK JAIN e for appellant.

and or respondent-HVPNL. for setting aside order dated Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh as formulated in the grounds of stances of the case, whether the ld. g carry forward of the unabsorbed when as per Section 32(2) it is to the succeeding year, and when the year has not been allowed to be turn was not filed within the time the Act?” t submits that Tribunal granted basis of judgment of this High 2005) 276 ITR 521. This appeal has been filed by the Department med that SLP No.4468/2006 filed g decision in Haryana Hotels

t d h f

d o e e e d h l t d Manju 2025.04.09 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-28-200

(supra), has has attained above said raised is ans 3. the specific decision of ITR 521.

April 07, 202 manju Whether speaking/ Whether Reportab

s been dismissed for non-prosecu d finality and stands covered in fa decision. It is submitted that q swered in favour of assessee. Keeping in view the facts and c stand of the appellant, this a this High Court in C.I.T. Vs. H

25.

/reasoned:- Yes/No le:-

Yes/No

-2- ution on 12.12.2006. The matter avour of the assessee, in view of question of law as sought to be

d circumstances of the case and appeal is dismissed in view of Haryana Hotels Ltd., (2005) 276

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

r f e d f 6 Manju 2025.04.09 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 →