KAYTEE COTSYNTH INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6985/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2017AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a conflicting decision by the Gujarat High Court. Following the higher judicial authority, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier assessment years against short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) had disallowed this set-off, relying on an ITAT Special Bench decision.

What were the issues?

Whether unabsorbed depreciation from earlier assessment years can be set off against short-term capital gains, considering conflicting judicial precedents.

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid
Hearing: 18.5.2017Pronounced: 18.5.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-4, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1999-2000 to 2001-02 cannot be set off against the Short term capital gain.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

3.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has decided this issue against the assessee by following the decision rendered by Special bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guaranty Ltd (ITA No.4917

2 Kaytee cotsynth Industries Ltd.

& 4918/Mum/2008). However, we notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken a different view of the matter in the case of General Motors India P Ltd (354 ITR 244). Since the decision of High Court, being a higher judicial body, is available in the matter, we are of the view that this issue has to be decided in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file with the direction to adjudicate them afresh by applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above cited case.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.5.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →