How many judgments cite General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT?

141 judgments on BharatTax cite General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (354 ITR 244), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148.

General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

354 ITR 244High Court2013#716 most cited

What is General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Unabsorbed depreciation from Assessment Year 1997-98 to 2001-02, carried forward to AY 2002-03, is governed by Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001, allowing its unlimited carry forward and set off against income of subsequent years. Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 challenging such set-off require valid reasons and new tangible material.

141

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

General Motors India v. DCIT · 354 ITR 244 · Section 32(2) · unabsorbed depreciation · carry forward and set off · Finance Act 2001 · unlimited period · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment proceedings · valid reasons for reassessment · new tangible material

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

india interest

Judgments citing General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7367/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 147Section 68Section 69

…the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.201…

Jiten K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 147Section 68Section 69

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Kids Kemp

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/8/2019HC Karnataka26 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 32(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.8 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I. ADV., FOR SRI. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) AND: M/S. KIDS KEMP NO.18, RAMANNSHREE ARCADE M.G.…

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

…ase, have perused the assessment order, material available on record and taken into account the oral contentions and written submissions made by the appellant in this regard. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Limited (354 ITR 244) clearly held that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Y.1997-98 to A.Y.2001-02 will be carried forward to A.Y.2002-03 and as a result become part thereof in terms of the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. Accordingly, it will be available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent…

ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai vs. Ttg Industries Private Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1934/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

Section 154Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1934/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Income Tax Officer, M/s. TTG Industries Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(2), Vs. Old No.672, New No.476, Chennai. Temple Tower III Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam (Mount Road), Chennai – 600 035. [PAN: AAACT 6106F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G. John…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai vs. Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2820/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri M.Balaganesh () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Jsw Ispat Steel Ltd. Tax, Cc. 3(2), Vs. Jsw Centre, Central Range-3, Behind Maratheudyogbhavan, Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaci6293E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Narendra Jangnali & Shri T.S. Khalsa, Drs Assessee By : Ms.Vanita Shah Shri Gaurav Khabra, Ars Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2021

For Appellant: Ms.Vanita ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Narendra Jangnali &

Section 32(2)

…n the case of M/s Confidence Petroleum India Ltd. (ITA 582/2014) has again followed its own decision in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. (354 ITR 244) has taken a similar view and the SLP filed by the Department against the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is reproduced as under:- "We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A. Y.…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…disposing of the objections taken by the assessee renders the assessment a nullity. For this, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1) Trend Electronics (379 ITR 81) (Bom) 2) C.V. Mahadeva vs. CIT (69 ITCL 340) (Kar) 3) General Motors India P. Ltd. (354 ITR 244) (Guj) 5) Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. (370 ITR 107) (Guj) 6) Gouthamchand (44(T) ITCL 163 (Kar) 7) G.N. Mohan Raju (113 DTR 19 (ITAT Bang) 8) A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju ITA 1569 to 1562/B/10 dated 25/07/2016 4.9.4 In view of the above submissions, it was submitted that the impugned assessment order, after re-opening of assessment order is bad in…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Shri Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ce the assessment order so passed is illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The further reliance is placed in following-decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) G N Mohan Raju Vs. ITO (2015) 167 TTJ (Bang) 236. (iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 has quashed the assessment where the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of considering the objections. (v) A Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Assis…

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)

…n Unilever Pvt. Ltd., reported in 394 ITR 73 and several other Bombay High Court decisions, had dismissed the claim of the revenue and accepted the elaborate decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., in 354 ITR 244. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision had also referred to the fact that Special Leave Petition preferred by the revenue against the decision of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., supra before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been dismissed. 6.2. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not f…

Kumar'S Metallurgical Corporation Limited, Hyderabd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Kumar’S Metallurgical Vs. Acit, Corporation Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 4425 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal cited supra various High Courts have decided the issue in favour of the assessee such as :- (i) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT for the AY 2006-07 reported in 354 ITR 244 it was held that unabsorbed depreciation of the AY 1997-98 shall be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of 8 years in view of the amendment to section 32(2) of the Act and accordingly the same can be set off in the AY 2006-07. (ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT vs. British Motor Company for the AY 2010-11 repor…

Softdel Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2969/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Us, Are As Follows:

Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 2969/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President) And Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) ITA No. 2969/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2009-10 Softdel Systems Pvt Ltd ……………….………Appellant 86 Jolly Maker Chambers II 225, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAECS0576Q] Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3), Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by Nitesh Joshi for the appellant Uodhavraj Singh for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : December 17,2019 Date of pronouncement : March 12, 2020 ORDER Per…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunvin Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6465/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddy. Cit, Circle-4(3)(2) M/S Sunvin Industries Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, 80-84, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadi Seth Agiary Lane, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400002 Pan – Aaecs3087L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D,RFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 32(2)

…buttress his aforesaid claim the assessee had also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001. Further, reliance was also placed by the assessee on the judgement of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai, “D” Bench in the case of M/s Rinku Polychem Ltd. in ITA No. 748, 749 and 750/Mum/2013. Also, it was submitted by the assessee that the CIT(A) had in its own case for A.Y. 2010-11 allowed its claim for brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 1996-97 to A.Y. 2001-02. The CIT(A) after deliberating on…

Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 2262/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: S/Shri Hirali Desai & Karan MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Nillu Jaggi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 72Section 72(2)Section 92C

…t any cap of years. To further buttress his contention, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) CIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd., 263 Taxaman 250 (SC) (2) General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244(Guj). 14 ITA NO.2314/MUM/2017(A.Y.2012-13) 18.3 The Ground No.4 is in respect of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee failry conceded that it is consequential in nature. 18.4 The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that ground No.5 of the appeal is with respect…

ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: S/Shri Hirali Desai & Karan MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Nillu Jaggi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 72Section 72(2)Section 92C

Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 60/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.01/Alld/2019 [In Ita No.60/Alld/2019] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Department By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 151Section 68

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AACCH0049M (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.01/Alld/2019 [In ITA No.60/ALLD/2019] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad TAN/PAN:AACCH0049M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Department by: Shri S. K.…

M/S. Laxmi Rolling and Strips Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2013/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ssee with regard to reopening of assessment and for the violation which would result in quashing of the assessment order. The learned AR also relied upon the following judgments :- (i) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj.)] (ii) Ms.Jayanthi Natarajan v. ACIT [(2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.)] (iii) Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad.)] (iv) Tolins Rubbers v. ACIT [(2004) 270 ITR 280 (Ker.)] (v) Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. ACIT [(2015) 370 ITR 107 (Guj.)] 8. The learned Departmental Representative submitt…

Smt M. R. Prabhavathy vs. The Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

WTA/8/2019HC Karnataka16 Jan 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 32(2)

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atv Projects India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 107/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Atv Projects India Limited Income Tax-Circle 9(1)(2) D-8, Atv House, Midc Street Room No. 260A, 2 Nd Floor, No. 16, Marol, Andheri (E), बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaaca6923B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Anadi Varma, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, AR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 by relying on the decision of General Motors India P. Ltd. v/s DCIT (354 ITR 244 (Guj)). Without appreciating that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP, it has neither upheld the Hon’ble High Court’s view nor answered the Revenue’s Question?” 15. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on perusal of annexure to tax audit report in Form No.3CD noticed that the asse…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara vs. The Liquidator, M/S. Petrofils Co. Operative Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 1465/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R

Section 32(2)

…co-ordinate bench of ITAT has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 60 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of General Motors India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 354 ITR 244 (Guj) whereby firstly the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off and unabsorbed depreciation has been dispensed with by the subsequent amendment and accordingly the unabsorbed depreciation arising in the assessment order prior to the amendments are also governed by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by the Finance…