How many judgments cite DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd.?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd. (40 SOT 14), spanning 2016 to 2025.

DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd.

40 SOT 14Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#5528 most cited

What is DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd. authority for?

Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years prior to April 1, 1997, can be carried forward and set off. The substitution of Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 2001, restored the earlier regime where unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward indefinitely.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd. · 40 SOT 14 · unabsorbed depreciation · carry forward · set off · Section 32(2) · Finance Act 2001 · assessment year 1997-98 · depreciation rules

Judgments citing DCIT v. Times Guarantee Ltd.

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

…a), the contentions of the assessee/appellant was rejected as is evident from para 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order reproduced as under: “5. 3. 2. The Hon'ble of ITAT Mumbai [Special Bench Decision) in the case of DCIT VS. Times Guartee Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (SB) (Mum) & ITA Nos.4917 & 4918/Mum/2008 Asst. Years 2003-2004 & 2004-2005; wherein it was held the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002, which is reinforcement of the provision as existing in the first period i.e.. prior to 1st April, 1997. Thus, the law as existing in the second period w.e.f. 1s…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 6351/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesrl

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri TS Khalsa, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 50C

…ue, we find the CIT(A) dealt on the provisions, judicial decisions and observed at page 11 to 14 Para 9 which is read as under: 9. Ground No.4: 9.1 This ground pertains to AO's action in wrongly applying the decision of DOlT Vs. T imes Gu aran te e Limite d 40 SOT 14 (Mu m) (S b) to ward s d is allowan ce of Rs.43,70,38,4421- on account of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 9.2 The AO observed that the assessee had unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.43,70,38,442/- pertaining to A.Y.1996- 97 to A.Y.2001-02. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DOlT Vs. Times Guaranty Ltd. 90 SO…

ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mattel Toys (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-7(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Phoenix House Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.152/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3903/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Vs. Acit-7(2)(1) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix House M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ould be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by Finance Act 2001. We find that the revenue had placed reliance on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Times Guarantee Ltd., reported 40 SOT 14. But we find that the said issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 354 ITR 244. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the very same case of Times Guarantee Ltd., vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax in Income…

DCIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Amit Spinning Industres Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4343/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dcit – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Amit Spinning Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan A-60, Phase-Ii M.K.Road, Okhla Industrial Area Mumbai – 400 020 Delhi – 110 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca3305M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…ails, noticed that an amount of Rs.7,50,12,769/- pertained to A.Y.1995-96 and Rs.4,72,12,935/- pertained to A.Y.1996-97. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Times Guaranty Ltd. reported in 40 SOT 14 held that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Yrs 1995-96, 1996-97 could be set off only up to 2004-05 and not thereafter. Accordingly, he concluded that assessee cannot be allowed to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,22,25,704/- pertaining to A.Yrs1995-96 and 1997-98 beyond A.Y.2004-05. The ld. CIT(A) by placing…

ITO 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hilti Manufacturing India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A)

ITA 3603/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3603/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ITO-10(1)(1) M/s. Hilti Manufacturing Vs. Room No. 25 India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor (Previously know as Aayakar Bhavan Bhukhanwala Diamond M.K. Road Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Koteshwar Palace CHS Jiva mahale Marg Koldongri Lane No. 4 Opp. Lane HSBC Bank Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 069. PAN : AADCB2566L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth Department by Shri S. Senthil Kumar Date of Hearing 13.6.2019 Date of Pronouncement 2.8.2019…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

ITA 4813/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat K PatelFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,24,09,517/- pertained to assessment 1998-99, 1999-2000 to 2000-01 and can only be allowed to be carry forward for eight years only. It was submitted that ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Times Guarantee Limited (2010) 40 SOT 14 (Mum) has held that the unabsorbed depreciation relatable to this period can only be allowed to be carried forward for a period of eight years. It was , 26 I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 however, fairly submitted by learned DR that Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the General Motors India P. Ltd.(Supra), has held that unabsorbed depreciation for AY 1997-98…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Searock Enterpries P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 972/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Income Tax Officer 13(2)(2) M/S Searock Enterprises 1S Floor, Room No. 147, Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C/O Economy Refrigeration Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ltd. Kirti Bldg, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabc4160P

For Appellant: S.G. Dandawate & Co., ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32Section 32(2)

…2006-07.” 3. Briefly facts are that the AO disallowed the claim of brought forward depreciation for AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 totaling of ₹ 57,22,613/- by relying on the decision of Bombay Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Times Guarantee Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (Mum) by stating that unabsorbed depreciation up to FY 2001-02 can be carried forward for 8 years only and can be adjusted only against business income. Before CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT(2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and he allowed the claim of the ass…

Stanley Black & Decker India Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 145(2)Section 43B

…hat unabsorbed depreciation brought forward by the assessee pertained to period prior to A.Y. 2002-03 and further more that 8 years had also elapsed. Accordingly, by following Special Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd. (40 SOT 14), the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of set off. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation against business income but 5 Stanley Black & Decker India Limited rejected against long term capital gain. The assessee is aggrieved by the said decision in not granting set off of unabsorbed depreciation against long…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co.Ltdmandlik House, Mandlik Rd, Colaba, Mumbai

ITA 3805/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3805/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Asst Cit, Circle(2)(1), M/S The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. Mandik House, R. No. 545, बिधम/ Mandik Road, Colaba, Aaykar Bhawan; Vs. Mumbai-400 005. M.K Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact4149A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)

…e LTCG of Rs. 9,27,76,972/- of the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08. The ld. D.R in support of his aforesaid contention placed reliance on the following orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal:- (i). DCIT, Circle 1(3), Mumbai Vs. Times Guarranty Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (Mum) (SB). (ii). Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 144 ITD 120 (Hyd- Trib). It was averred by the ld. D.R that the order passed by the CIT(A) not being in conformity with the settled position of law, was thus liable to be vacated. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental representative, perused the orders of the lower autho…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. M/S. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1936/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2017AY 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion were eligible for set off up to AY. 2004-05 and cannot be carried forward to subsequent years. 15. The AO in coming to the above conclusion by placing reliance on the special bench decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guartee Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (SB)(Mum) wherein it was held the provisions of Sec.32(2) as substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002, which is reinforcement of the provision as existing in the first period i.e., prior to 1st April, 1997. Thus the law as existing in the second period w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 was completely taken back and as a result of that the p…

ITO 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Schott Glass Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1867/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Aliasgar Rampurwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar -DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “केकेकेके ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1867/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-11(2)(1)…

DCIT Cir. 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jasra Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, M/S Jasra Graphics P. Ltd. Cir.-6(3)(1), 101, Prabhadevi Industrial बनाम/ R. No.506, 5Th Floor, Estate, 408, Veer Savarkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Prabhadevi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacw1638F

Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, M/s Jasra Graphics P. Ltd. Cir.-6(3)(1), 101, Prabhadevi Industrial बनाम/ R. No.506, 5th Floor, Estate, 408, Veer Savarkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Prabhadevi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAACW1638F राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla-DR "न…

Interwoven Inc. India Brnch, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 8755/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)

…313 ITR 94). Similar principles were applied by the Supreme Court in the case of DIT v. Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416), by the Authority for Advance Rulings in KT Corporation (181 Taxman 94) and by the Mumbai ITAT in Dy. DIT v. Staubli A.G. India Branch Office (40 SOT 14). 19. It was submitted that the assessee does not have a PE in India under the Agency PE of the assessee in India since mere provision of marketing services or making fee collection from customers and forwarding would not result in concluding contracts or securing orders nor assistance in sale of products in India without any authority to negotiat…

Interwoven Inc. India Branch, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 56/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)

Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6661/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)

…rent year’s income. In support, he referred and strongly relied upon the decision of ITAT 3 इंदौर "ट"ल अँड आइरन "म"स "ल"मटेड Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd ITA 6661/Mum/2014 Mumbai Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs Times Guarantee Ltd, reported in [2010] 40 SOT 14. Accordingly, he issued a notice under section 154 on 26.11.2013, rectifying the assessment order passed under section 143(3). In response, the assessee vide reply dated 03.12.2013 had objected to such a rectification and also gave submissions on merits. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer after referring to section 32(2) as it stood prior to amendm…

ACIT, Cen. Cir-VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 143/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 143/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(2)

…s follows :- “1.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of rs.5,55,76,222/- on account of carried forwarded unabsorbed depreciation without appreciating the decision of special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Time Guarantee Ltd. Reported in 40 SOT 14. 2. That the department craves leave to add or modify the grounds of appeal before the hearing of the case.” 3. The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of automobile tyres, tubes & flaps and generation and distribution of power. During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2008-09 the AO on perusal of the…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S Epcos India Pvt Ltd, North 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1161/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

…nd are of the view that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Limited (354 ITR 244) (supra), which has the effect of overruling the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Times Guarantee [40 SOT 14 (Mum.)(SB) (supra) and also on the basis of other decisions referred by the assessee before CIT(A), the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed”. 8. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto is similar to A.Y. 2004-05,…

Jct Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T - IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1983/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1983/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jct Limited -Vs.- C.I.T., Iv, Kolkata-Iv, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6733 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.Srivastava, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)

…riod) unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off only upto a period of 8 years. The view expressed by the CIT in the impugned order was also expressed by a special bench decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guartee Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (SB)(Mum) wherein it was held the provisions of Sec.32(2) as substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002, which is reinforcement of the provision as existing in the first period i.e., prior to 1st April, 1997. Thus the law as existing in the second period w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 was completely taken back and as a result of that the p…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata. vs. M/S Epcos India Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed

ITA 815/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas,CIT,DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

DCIT CC 41, Mumbai vs. Jsl Structure Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4086/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: shri Aditya Asgaonkar-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal –Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 32(2)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अिधकरण " जे” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“J”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/4086/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-Central Circle-41 M/s. JSL Structures Ltd. Room No.655, 6th Floor, 6th Floor, Valecha Chambers, New Link Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Road, Oshiwara, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 053. PAN:A…