D.C.I.T. RG. 8(2), MUMBAI vs. NELCO LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5078/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the assessment year 2008-09, which accepted the assessee's plea. Therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward and set off even after the lapse of eight years.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for set off in future years beyond the eight-year period. The issue was identical to a previous assessment year for the same assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off beyond the statutory eight-year period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. K.K.Ved
For Respondent: Mr. Mohammed Rizwan, Mr. K.K.Ved
Hearing: 26/10/2016Pronounced: 26/10/2016

ORDER Per N. K. Pradhan, A. M.:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. It is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai and arises out of the order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. In short, the issue is whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation for set off in future years beyond the period of eight years. 3. The ld. DR supports the order of the Assessing Officer (AO).

ITA 5078/Mum/2012 2

4. The ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the order of the ITAT “B” Bench Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No. 2306/Mum/2012.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue in dispute is covered by the order of the ITAT “B” Bench Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 in and the same reads as under:

“ 2. In short, the issue is that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation for set off in future years beyond a period of eight years, which was not accepted by the AO as well as the CIT(A).

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon following decisions in support of his contention that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Y. 1995-96 onwards can be carried forward, in the event that they are not absorbed in subsequent years, and set off can be claimed even after lapse of eight years:

i. General Motors India (P) Ltd vs. DCIT- 210 Taxman 20 (Guj) ii. Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. Addl. CIT-22 ITR (AT) 737 (Mum) iii. Multon’s Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – dated 22.05.2013

4.

The ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue stands covered by the aforecited decisions, though , however, he supported the stand taken by the Revenue.

5.

We have carefully considered the rival submission and perused the record. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra), which in turn was followed by the ITAT Mumbai Benches, we are of the considered opinion that the plea raised by the assessee deserves to be accepted and we order accordingly.”

6.

The facts in the impugned assessment year being same as in the assessment year 2008-09, we follow the above order of the ITAT and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

ITA 5078/Mum/2012 3

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 26.10.2016.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →