DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF JNCOME TAX, CIRCEL-3 , NAGPUR vs. M/S. ACC NIHON CASTING LT, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2008-
2009, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-2/
103/2014-15, dated 13.08.2018, involving proceedings
u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
The Revenue raises the following substantive
grounds in the instant appeal :
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in allowing claim of assessee to carry forward of business loss and set off unabsorbed depreciation Rs.20,19,09,580/- relating to earlier years i.e. 1995- 96 to AY 1999-2000 contrary to judgment in the case of CIT -vs- Pioneer Aisa Packing (P) Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 1981 in which it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1/4/1997 could be set off against the business income or income under any other head for AY 1997-98 and seven subsequent AYs. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur has erred in interpreting the amended provisions of section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act 2001. 3. Any other ground which may be raised during the course of hearing.”
Both the learned representatives next invited our
attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reversing the
assessment findings thereby accepting the assessee’s claim of
carry forward of business loss and set-off of unabsorbed
depreciation in question pertaining to the assessment years
1995-96 to 1999-2000 as under :
3 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
4 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
5 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
6 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
Mr. Kanojiya vehemently argued in favour of the
Revenue’s pleadings that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on
facts in accepting the assessee’s foregoing carry forward of
business losses and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation claim
thereby applying the amended provisions in sec.32(2) vide
Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect. We find no
substance in Revenue’s instant sole grievance once it has
come on record that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s
decision in CIT vs. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd., [2019] 103
taxmann.com 31 (Bom.) has already declined the department’s
arguments. The same has also been upheld in hon’ble apex
court’s decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 32 (SC). That
being the case, we find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole
substantive grievance. Rejected accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28th September, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-2, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
7 I.T.A.No.249/NAG./2018
S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 .09.2023 A.M. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
