← All Phrases

“Section 32(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(2)106 judgments

EAST DELHI WASTE PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI

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

ITA 3463/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesheast Delhi Waste Processing Vs. Dcit, Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-7(1), 221, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Iii, Okhla Industrial Estate, South Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco7539D

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 154Section 241(2)Section 242(2)Section 79

while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 11.12.2023 which stood upheld by the ld CIT(A). 9. The provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act specify that the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years would be treated as current year depreciation on a deeming fiction. The provisions ... losses against the business income and the unabsorbed portion thereon to be carried forward to subsequent years. A combined reading of provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act and Section 72(2) of the Act make it very clear that first brought forward business losses would have

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

that unabsorbed depreciation\nis allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996\namendment regarding the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act.\nTherefore, the Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period\ndepreciation to the assessee and order passed ... carried forward to AY 2002-03 and became part of it came to\nbe governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the\nFinance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off\nagainst income of subsequent years without any limit. The relevant\nobservations

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

that unabsorbed depreciation\nis allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996\namendment regarding the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act.\nTherefore, the Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period\ndepreciation to the assessee and order passed ... carried forward to AY 2002-03 and became part of it came to\nbe governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the\nFinance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off\nagainst income of subsequent years without any limit. The relevant\nobservations

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

that unabsorbed depreciation\nis allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996\namendment regarding the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act.\nTherefore, the Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period\ndepreciation to the assessee and order passed ... carried forward to AY 2002-03 and became part of it came to\nbe governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the\nFinance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off\nagainst income of subsequent years without any limit. The relevant\nobservations

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

that unabsorbed depreciation\nis allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996\namendment regarding the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act.\nTherefore, the Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period\ndepreciation to the assessee and order passed ... carried forward to AY 2002-03 and became part of it came to\nbe governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the\nFinance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off\nagainst income of subsequent years without any limit. The relevant\nobservations

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 32(2)

that unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996 amendment regarding the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation to the assessee and order passed ... carried forward 3 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and set off even after 8 years without any limit in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. The ld. AR in order to support his arguments relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

Assessing Officer is\napproved and claim of the Appellant is rejected.\"\n16. The ld. AR submitted that as per the provisions of section 32(2) the\nunabsorbed depreciation becomes part of the depreciation of the current year and\ntherefore the same cannot be denied on the ground that no return ... authority. Secondly period of\nlimitation has no bearing on the fact that if accounts are audited or not. It\noperates independently.\n7.11 Further Section 32(2) start as \"Where, in the assessment of the assessee,\nfull effect cannot be given to any allowance.... ”. Thus, it clearly mentions\nthat the depreciation

LAQSHYA MEDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 3004/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer, in every subsequent year, is bound to recognise and give effect to such carry-forward in the manner contemplated under sections 32(2) and 72 of the Act. In the present case, however, we find that this exercise has not been undertaken by the lower authorities

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

which was clearly evident from the ITR filed for the previous years. The Addl./JCIT(A)failed to appreciate that as per Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no restriction on the indefinite carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, and the denial ... 686/Asr/2024 10 Assessment Year: 2022-23 same is apparent from the contents of the ITR of previous years and as per provisions of section 32(2) of the Act , the same is to be carried forward indefinitely, without restrictions and is to be allowed to be set off against current

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2084/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32(2)

assessee before him that the loss for the impugned year was depreciation loss and not business loss and noting the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act which allowed carry forward of depreciation loss without requirement of claiming the same in a return filed u/s.139 ... considered unabsorbed depreciation as business loss and did not allow the set off. The appellant has quoted the provisions of section 32(2) and made submissions as reproduced below: “ (2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-section

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

only to business loss and do not cover\nthe amount of unabsorbed depreciation which is treated as depreciation of\ncurrent year as per section 32(2) of the IT Act and consequently they ought\nto have held that unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 is allowable as a\ndeduction against ... unabsorbed business losses other than\nlosses on account of depreciation and that is so because the carry forward\ndepreciation has been provided under section 32(2) of the Act. The manner of\ncarry forward in the two provisions is entirely different. In this manner of\ninterpretation of the provisions

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 68Section 80I

recorded that the 3 AO had allowed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation without verifying the availability of carry forward and its allowability under section 32(2). The PCIT further recorded that the claim under section 80IA was allowed without reconciling the difference between depreciation claimed under books and income ... revenue particularly when unabsorbed depreciation on goodwill on amalgamation has rightly been carried forward and set off in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act. 5. The subject order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT is based on the wrong assumption that the case

M/S. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE (2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1562/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmedical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Vs. Ito, Circle 2(2)(1) Ltd., Room No. 545, Aayakar 312, Classic Centre, C Wing, Bhawan, Mk Road, Mahal Indl Estate, Off, Mumbai – 400020 Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri E, Mumbai – 400093 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4522E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sameer G. Dalal Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 19.02.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Relates To Challenging The Order Of Denial Of Adjustment Made By The 2 M/S. Medical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

long-term capital gains and brought forward depreciation is to be treated as current year's depreciation as per the legal fiction of section 32(2) and the same is also to be allowed to be set off from the long-term capital gains. 8. Be that

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

amendment declining set off was introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration is the nature

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/PUN/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 73

loss for current year of Rs.51,566/- and further claimed set- off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.5,99,764/-. 8. We find that section 32(2) of the Act has a direct bearing to the issue in hand and the same reads as under :- “32 (1) xxxxx (2) Where

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

vide his details dated 18.02.2016 has made submission\nwhich find noted and adjudicated upon by the ld. AO. That the combined\nreading of Section 32(2) and 70(2) shows that if an assessee has\nunabsorbed depreciation u/s.32(2) as well as unabsorbed business loss\ncarried forward u/s.72(1), Section ... wrong to\nassume that Section 72 also deals with the carrying forward of\ndepreciation. This carry forward having been provide in Section 32(2)\nin a different manner, Section 72 deals with losses other than losses due\nto depreciation”.\n\n5. The ld. AO has considered these submissions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity of virtual hearing 5. erred

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity of virtual hearing 5. erred

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity of virtual hearing 5. erred

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

ITA 59/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 250Section 32

judicial pronouncement referred to and relied upon by him notwithstanding the fact that in view of the legal fiction created in section 32 (2) of the Act, the allowance of the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, shall be added to the amount 3 Vikramshila ... previous years which could not be absorbed and hence was needed to be carried forward. It is clear that a plain reading of section 32(2) of the Act would ensure that any unabsorbed depreciation would be available for setting of in future financial years. There are a catena

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6