CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd.

274 ITR 600Reported decision2005#20259 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(3)Section 263 Section 32 Section 143(2)Section 43(6)Section 43(6) Explanation 2

Issues it is cited on

unabsorbed depreciation written down value amalgamation section 10a section 10 previous year transfer section 143(2)company section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd.

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

…ry forward could not be taken into account. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 1 which has been applied by this court in CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 600 . 11. In the light of the reasoning stated in the above referred to decisions, the question of law has to decided against the Revenue and the same is thus decided against the Revenue.” 12. On perusal of the above, we found that the Hon’ble High Court has held the amount of unabsorbed depreciation which was not set off for carry forward could not…

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…ry forward could not be taken into account. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 1 which has been applied by this court in CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 600 . 11. In the light of the reasoning stated in the above referred to decisions, the question of law has to decided against the Revenue and the same is thus decided against the Revenue.” 12. On perusal of the above, we found that the Hon'ble High Court has held the amount of unabsorbed depreciation which was not set off for carry forward could not…

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rward could not be taken into account. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 1 which has been applied by this Court in the CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., (2005) 274 ITR 600. 24. By respectfully following the above said decision, we hold that the assessee company is entitled to the unabsorbed depreciation where the written down value of the assets would be the actual cost of the assets of the assessee less depreciation allowed to the company and only to that extent. We remand this issue to the file of the ld. A.O. f…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250