← All Phrases

“unabsorbed depreciation”

DepreciationSection 32(2)Section 32(2)810 judgments

The decision most relied on for unabsorbed depreciation is Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (340 ITR 477), cited in 213 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unabsorbed depreciation

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
354 ITR 244 · 2013 · High Court
141
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.
286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
348 ITR 72 · 2012 · High Court
63
citing judgments

Depreciation, including unabsorbed depreciation, should not be reduced from the profits of an undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when computing the deduction amount.

Dy. CIT v. Binani Industries Ltd.
178 TTJ 658 · 2016 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

The lower of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss is deductible from book profits under Clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. Capital receipts, such as forfeiture of share warrants, which do not have the character of income, are not liable for book profits tax under Section 115JB.

S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Limited v. ACIT (VACIT
2024 SCC OnLine MAD 8416 · 2024 · Reported
39
citing judgments

The higher tax rate under Section 115BBE, increased to 60% effective from April 1, 2017, is not applicable to transactions that occurred prior to this date.

62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd.
324 ITR 29 · 2010 · High Court
37
citing judgments

In a scenario involving amalgamation, the accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of an undertaking can be carried forward by the amalgamating company if it continues the business of the undertaking.

Judgments citing unabsorbed depreciation

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

Rswm Limited, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31, Delhi

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

ITA 4876/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshrswm Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Kharigram, Gulabpur, Central Circle-31, Bhilwara, Rajasthan Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacr9700M Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 37

filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28.09.2012. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.11.2014 determining loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 31,96,75,001/- after making few additions. On first appeal, the ld CIT(A) provided partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved ... premises of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed return of income u/s 153A of the Act on 03.03.2018 declaring total loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 74,95,70,726/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Act on 29.12.2018 determining the assessed loss

Microtek Infrastrutures Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68

amounting to Rs.25,631/-. During the year, the company has also claimed set-off of business loss amounting to Rs.2,22,58,828/- & of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.19,29,011/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny on the following grounds: Sr. Issues Description of issues No. 1 ICDS

M/S Sova, Panaji vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

income with a claim for carried forward [‘C/f’] of total losses of ₹44,90,40,717/- of which current year business losses including unabsorbed depreciation of ₹3,21,300/- were ₹27,38,53,538/-. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice ... consequential effect thereof in law is automatic. In upshot the effect of this adjudication shall ensure that current year total business loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) returned by the appellant vide its return filed on 29/09/2018 shall on one hand be reduced by stamp duty of ₹2025Lakhs which

Repro India Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the additions and also raised issues relating to MAT credit and set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by directing re-computation of income on certain computational aspects, while confirming the substantive additions. 4. Aggrieved

Mahua Cooperative Cold Storage Ltd, Mahua, Vaishali vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 520/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 4A

NCDC is, therefore, liable to be deleted. 7) For that the appellant has carried forward loss of Rs. 50,33,596/- and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 44,65,970/- which should have been allowed against the income determined. 8) For that other grounds, if any, will be urged ... require any specific adjudication. 9. As regards additional Ground No. 7 relating to carry forward of the loss of ₹ 50,33,596/- and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 44,65,970/- which was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested to be admitted and decided being purely a legal ground

Clover Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7922/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13 Clover Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-6(1)(1), Flat No. 12, Mumbai. 1St Floor, Plot No. 541/C, Vs. Ashok Building, Edenwalla Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan : Aaacg1925B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal A/W. Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

calculated the amount of Rs. 13,87,637/- by reducing the claim u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,05,83,467/- from total unabsorbed depreciation. The above un-absorbed depreciation is the aggregate of the depreciation in eligible units as well as other business of construction carried on by the assessee ... supra) we are set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to accept the claim of assessee as filed as the unabsorbed depreciation can not be set off against the profits of the initial years.. Hence, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

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

raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in upholding set off of assessee’s income against unabsorbed depreciation as against brought forward business losses and whether the same would be covered by Section 79 of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival submissions ... assessee had claimed brought forward East Delhi Waste Processing Company Pvt. Ltd losses of Rs. 140,62,57,568/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,40,57,47,157/-. The brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation was claimed at the time of filing of tax return which was filed within

Mc Coy Drugs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6449/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

accounting entries. 9. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not giving a clear direction for allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.32,49,007/-,,despite adjudicating and allowing the claim of unabsorbed depreciation in the appellate order. 10. That the leaned Commissioner of Income ... income for the relevant AY on 01.03.2013 declaring total income at Nil under regular tax 3 Mc coy Drugs Private Ltd. provisions, showing unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 11,41,294/- and income as per the provisions of section 115JB for Rs. 3,02,059/-. The return of assessee was processed

Repro India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7605/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrepro India Limited Acit Circle 11Th Floor, B Wing, Sun 8(1)(1), Paradise Business Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr0379J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

forward to subsequent year. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2021-22 amounting to Rs. 61,44,58,589/- to be carried forward to subsequent year. 5. The CIT(A) has erred

Compass India Support Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 511/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Compass India Support Services Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 1383/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1130/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2024-25 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd.…….....……...…..…..Respondent 1St Floor, Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhash Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaact4947L] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri J P Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2024–25. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2024 Claiming A Refund Of Rs.15,61,200/- Pursuant To Set-Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Against The Returned Income. Intimation Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Directly Passed On 01.11.2024, Assessing A Refund Of Rs.16,22,410/- & Allowing Setoff Of Brought Forward Loss Against Income As Done In The Return Of Income. However, The Order Did Not Capture The Schedule Of Carry Forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation For Earlier Years. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

loss against income as done in the return of income. However, the order did not capture the schedule of carry forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years. M/s The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before ... business loss against the returned income. But AO disallowed the quantum of carry forward of business loss amounting to Rs.22,62,99,067/- and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.31,68,32,220/- in the impugned intimation order dated 01.11.2024. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is found that

Ashvin Dineshbhai Jadav, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Held, yes - Whether, therefore, during relevant assessment year, there was no bar existed with respect to allowing set off of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation on fixed assets against deemed income under section 68-Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee)” (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench

Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1205/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Surat21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambleshree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Ward-1, At. & Po. Chalthan, Bardoli. Tal.Palsana, Surat-394305. [Pan : Aaaac0477A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akshay M Modi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR
Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 37(1)

income assessed at Rs. 8,98,11,787/- against the returned income at Rs. NIL (after claiming carried forwards of unabsorbed depreciation for the year under appeal for Rs. 3,74,07,460/-), making various additions/disallowances for the aggregate amount of Rs. 12,72,19,247/- purely estimations/presumptions and merely ... case as well in law, both the lower authorities have grievously failed in granting the claim of set off of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation of preceding years against the income assessed at Rs. 8,98,11,787/- out of the carried forwards of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss

Adani Tracks Management Service Limited (Formerly Known As Adani Tracks Management Service Private Limited) (Also Formerly Known As Surguja Rail Corridor Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 1128/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaadani Tracks Management Vs. Ao-Cpc (Bangalore) Service Limited (Formerly Known (Jurisdictional Ao-Dcit, As Adani Tracks Management Circle-3(1), Gurgaon. Service Pvt. Ltd.) (Also Formerly Known As Surgula Rail Corridor Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 83, Sector 32 Adani House, \ Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Delhi-110006. (Pan: Aaocs5350A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dhrunal Bhatt, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 20.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Assesse Has Raised Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Dhrunal Bhatt, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

assessee has filed its return of income for assessment year 2020-21 on 28.01.2021 declaring nil income. After adjusting brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation as per normal provisions of the Act and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4716/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

assessee has u/s 80IA of the Act of Rs. 26,22,32,988/- without appreciating the fact that the not set-off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit. Hon'ble 2. Whether Delhi High the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by relying upon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4714/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

assessee has u/s 80IA of the Act of Rs. 26,22,32,988/- without appreciating the fact that the not set-off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit. Hon'ble 2. Whether Delhi High the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by relying upon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4713/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

assessee has u/s 80IA of the Act of Rs. 26,22,32,988/- without appreciating the fact that the not set-off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit. Hon'ble 2. Whether Delhi High the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by relying upon

Sael Limited, Faridkot Road Guruharsahai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 704/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

disallowance of CSR expenditure, donations, employee benefit provisions and leave encashment. The Assessing Officer also restricted the set-off of brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Consequently, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 5,75,53,800. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred