“Section 35(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(4)4 judgments

KAREENA ANIL ROHERA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 2704/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Kareena Anil Rohera Ito, Ward – 22(2)(1), Mumbai 11-439, Shiv Parvati Society, 14Th Road, Vs Piramal Chambers, Mumbai - Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052. 400012. [Pan: Afjjpr2529D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 35(4)

reflected in the column pertaining to “loss from speculative business 2 Kareen Anil Rohera including unabsorbed depreciation allowed under section 35(4)” in Schedule CF. However, in return of income for A.Y. 2014-15, this brought forward losses of Rs. 13,20,917/- is reflected differently without any justification. Further

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 68/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Order dated 27.01.2022. 8. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not considering the Unabsorbed Depreciation and allowance of Rs. 1,87,83,938/-under section 35(4) of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022. 9. The Ld. AO/ TPO / DRP erred in not considering the MAT credit

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

have heard the rival submissions and perused the records of the lower authorities and Schedule UD: “Unabsorbed Depreciation and allowance under section 35(4)” in Income Tax Return for AY 2016-17 and find that the impugned order is not sustainable for the following reasons: i. The observation ... return for AY 2016-17 was take into consideration by the both ld.AO and ld.CIT wherein Schedule UD: “Unabsorbed Depreciation and allowance under section 35(4)” is finding mentioned therein as under: Assessment year Amount of brought Amount of forward unabsorbed depreciation set off Sl.No depreciation against the current year