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

12 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd. (131 TTJ 257), spanning 2015 to 2021.

DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd.

131 TTJ 257Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#9211 most cited

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

Unabsorbed depreciation cannot be carried forward and set off beyond the statutory period of eight years. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a claim for set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation is not permissible if the period of eight years for carrying forward such depreciation has expired.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd. · 131 TTJ 257 · ITAT Mumbai · unabsorbed depreciation · carry forward · set off · eight years period · expiry of period

Also reported as

4 ITR 210

Judgments citing DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd.

Oberoi Motors, Ambala vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3513/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kantassessment Year : 2013-14 Oberoi Motors, Vs Acit, C/O-Rajiv Goel & Central Circle, Karnal. Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana Pan-Aaafq5401H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Rohit Goel, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pramita M.Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2021

Section 133ASection 68

…Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/s. Pushkar Steels P. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar in TA.No.5473/Del./2011 dated 29.02.2012 have directed the A.O. to examine the issue in the light of decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Times of Guaranty Limited (2010) 131 TTJ 257 (Mum.) (SB). The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by the above orders of different Benches of the Tribunal. It may also be noted here that A.O. denied the claim of assessee-company because decision of the Chandigadh Bench in the case of M/s. Liberty Plywood Private Ltd., Ambala Cantt. vs. ACIT, Ambala (supra) have not been a…

Shri Harbans Singh Bawa, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4423/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 32Section 71

…set off against income assessable under the head salaries. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Chennai, ITAT in the case of Chandrkumar vs ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 540 and also, the decision of ITAT, Mumbai bench in case of DCIT vs Times Guaranty Limited (4 ITR 210). He has also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai bench, in the case of Nitin Chandrakant. Desai vs ACIT in ITA .No. 2877/Mum/2012. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of set off of loss from one head against income from another head have b…

Shri Harbans Singh Bawa, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3596/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Section 32Section 71

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1184/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandia Kanchan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72A

…he assessee's to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs.131,63,54,679/- for A.Y.1993-94 to 1999-2000, wi1hout appreciating the fact that the A.O has not allowed the set off in view of the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Times Guaranty 131 TTJ 257. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's to carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs.8,24,94,154/- in respect of amalgamating company Orient Vegetexpo Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Clause (b) of Sub…

DCIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunshield Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5624/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax 8(2)(2), Room Ltd. Phoenix House, “A Vs. No. 348, M.K. Road, Wing”, 4Th Floor, 462 Mumbai-400020. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai- 400013. Pan No. Aafcs8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Falee H. Bilimoria, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Falee H. Bilimoria, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR

Section 115JSection 115WSection 143(3)Section 2

…rse of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed before the AO a statement giving details of the set off in respect of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. However, the AO followed the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd. (131 TTJ 257) and held that the set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation under normal provisions of the Act for the assessment years 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 is not allowed to the assessee, since the same have expired the term of 8 years to be carried forward. Thus the AO held that the assessee will be eligible to have benefit of brought forward depre…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1644/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri O. A. MaoFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य, एवं "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य, के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1644/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited., Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune-411 003 PAN : AAACK7297E ……""यथ" / Respondent Appellant by : Shri O. A. Mao Respondent by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /…

ACIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunshield Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6466/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax-8(2)(2), Vs. Ltd., Phoenix House, ‘A’ Room No. 348, M.K. Wing, 4Th Floor, 462, Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aafcs8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Rai, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ajit Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of M/s Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax-8(2)(2), Vs. Ltd., Phoenix House, ‘A’ Room No. 348, M.K. Wing, 4th floor, 462, Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 PAN No. AAFCS8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR Assessee by : Mr. Ajit Shah, AR Date of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dcm Hyundai Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1580/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Balasubramanian, CIT

…orbed depreciation to be set off against the long term capital gain. However, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. Referring to the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guarantee Ltd. reported in 131 TTJ 257, disallowed the claim of the assessee. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors P Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 354 ITR 244. According to the learned department representative, the revenue has already filed the special leave petiti…

Uttam Value Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only for fresh adjudication

ITA 3206/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…014 and the legal counsel Shri Dilip Lakhani was not available from 14th June to 17th July, 2014. The order was claimed to be received on 07/01/2014 and on 04/05/2014, and earlier there was a decision of the Tribunal namely DCIT vs Times Guarantee Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR 210, which was against the assessee and later on a decision from Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. came in favour of the assessee. It was explained that on 08/05/2014, after consulting legal expert, the assessee decided to prefer appeal and thus necessary papers were collected. Shri ITA Nos. 3206,3207 & 3209/Mum/2016 3 Uttam Val…

L'Oreal India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 7714/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin AmalsadualaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 254(1)Section 92

…finalising the assessment order,the AO did not allow set off in relation to brought forward unabsorbed depreciation,though in the draft assessment order same was allowed.Relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd.(131 TTJ 257), the AO made a disallowance. As the AO had not disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation in the draft assessment order, as stated earlier, so,the assessee did not agitate the issue before the DRP. 3.1.Before us,the AR contended that the unabsorbed depreciation from AY. 1995-96 to AY.1996-97 had become part of the unabsorbed deprecia…

ITO WD 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jay Container Service Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4587/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito Ward 8(2)(1), M/S Jay Container Service Co. Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.2, Vatika, 14 Baptista Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Opp. Ishwarlal Park, Vile Parle (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400056. Pan: Aaacj0257F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Mrs. Lata Sunder (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 32(2)

…f unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years prior to AY 2002-03 i.e. period from 1993-94 to 2001-02 against the income for the AY 2010-11 ignoring the ratio laid down by the Special 8ench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd. [131 TTJ 257 (ITAT, Mumbai, SB)] wherein it was held that the carry forward and set off of Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to 2 ITA No. 4587/M/2014 M/s Jay Container Service Co. Pvt. Ltd. assessment years upto 2001-02 has to be restricted to a period of eight years in accordance with the provisions of Finance Act (No 2) of 1996? ." 3. The appellant prays…

ITO 7(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunshield Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3346/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3346/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sessee company for computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act without properly appreciating the fact that the time period has already expired. 10. The A.O. relying upon the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty Ltd. (2010) 131 TTJ 257 (Mum) [SB] disallowed the ITA 3346/M/13 7 brought forward depreciation losses for the assessment year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 since the same have expired the term of eight years to be carried forward as per relevant applicable law. Aggrieved by the decision of A.O., the assessee company carried the matter before the CIT(A). The assessee company co…