← All Phrases

“Section 32(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 32(2) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 32(2)

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
116 ITR 1 · 1979 · Supreme Court
409
citing judgments

A gain arising from the cancellation of a forward exchange contract entered into for the acquisition of a capital asset constitutes a capital receipt. Income-tax liability for such transactions is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, independent of the accounting treatment in the books of account.

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
236 ITR 315 · 1999 · Supreme Court
370
citing judgments

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Judgments citing Section 32(2)

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

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, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & 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) निर्धारिती 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 / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 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 Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation to the assessee and order passed ... could be allowed to the assessee to be carried forward and set off even after 8 years without any limit in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. The Id. AR in order to support his arguments relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation to the assessee and order passed ... could be allowed to the assessee to be carried forward and set off even after 8 years without any limit in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. The Id. AR in order to support his arguments relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation to the assessee and order passed ... could be allowed to the assessee to be carried forward and set off even after 8 years without any limit in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. The Id. AR in order to support his arguments relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]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) (Α.Υ :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) निर्धारिती 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 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 Id. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation to the assessee and order passed ... could be allowed to the assessee to be carried forward and set off even after 8 years without any limit in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. The Id. AR in order to support his arguments relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court

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 & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

Assessing Officer is approved and claim of the Appellant is rejected." 16. The ld. AR submitted that as per the provisions of section 32(2) the unabsorbed depreciation becomes part of the depreciation of the current year and therefore the same cannot be denied on the ground that no return ... authority. Secondly period of limitation has no bearing on the fact that if accounts are audited or not. It operates independently. 7.11 Further Section 32(2) start as "Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance.... ”. Thus, it clearly mentions that 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 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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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 the amount of unabsorbed depreciation which is treated as depreciation of current year as per section 32(2) of the IT Act and consequently they ought to have held that unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 is allowable as a deduction against ... holding that the provisions of section 80 of the Income-tax Act do not apply to unabsorbed depreciation covered by section 32(2) of the Act?" 20. While answering the aforesaid questions in favour of the assessee, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as follows: “9. The question that

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

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)

vide his details dated 18.02.2016 has made submission which find noted and adjudicated upon by the ld. AO. That the combined reading of Section 32(2) and 70(2) shows that if an assessee has unabsorbed depreciation u/s.32(2) as well as unabsorbed business loss carried forward u/s.72(1), Section ... wrong to assume that Section 72 also deals with the carrying forward of depreciation. This carry forward having been provide in Section 32(2) in a different manner, Section 72 deals with losses other than losses due to depreciation”. 5. The ld. AO has considered these submissions of the assessee

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