BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and that a High Court appeal with direct bearing on the assessment was pending. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee company merged with another company and claimed carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the claim but later re-opened the assessment, disallowing the carry forward of losses and making an addition under Section 41(1)(b). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of a merged company is allowable, and whether a waiver of loan falls under Section 41(1)(b). Also, whether natural justice principles were violated during the assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 72A,Section 41(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
- 121 Taxmann.com 2843 citing121 Taxmann.com 284 · 2020 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 30.03.2024 for the Assessment Years
(hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 respectively.
ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07
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 72A
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Neovantage Innovation Park Private Limited… vs ITO, Ward -16(3), HyderabadITA 1101/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ginza Industries Limited, MumbaiITA 902/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: Heard2 Jun 2026AY 2018-19
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ginza Industries Limited, MumbaiITA 901/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: Heard2 Jun 2026AY 2017-18
- Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure… vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(2)(1), MumbaiITA 5588/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026