← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

DCIT Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5244/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

challenged the ld. CIT(A)’s order in not allowing set off of Rs. 2,52,04,161/- being brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company on the grounds that the assessee has failed to fulfill the conditions prescribed ... amalgamation in the share purchase agreement ends,] then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company

Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

challenged the ld. CIT(A)’s order in not allowing set off of Rs. 2,52,04,161/- being brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company on the grounds that the assessee has failed to fulfill the conditions prescribed ... amalgamation in the share purchase agreement ends,] then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company

Dynamic Powertech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 250

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

Suvarna Kiran Chavan, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1984/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Less : Brought forward losses -18,31,907 -18,31,907 -18,31,907 -18,31,907 (Unabsorbed depreciation) 9. Total income 66,00,907 | _1,87,92,646 66,00,907 3,07,98,570 (Note 3) Note 1 — In Original ITR dated 10-03-2022, appellant worked

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

Forward losses of Rs. 80,05,365/- while passing the Final Assessment 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 ... their grounds of appeal : a) Upward adjustment of Rs.1,05,79,088/- on account of Transfer Pricing (“TP”) adjustment. b) Claim on account of unabsorbed depreciation and allowances of Rs.1,87,83,938/- u/s.35(4) of the Act. c) MAT credit of Rs.27,66,279/- u/s.115JB

K.M.Sugar Mills Limited, Kanpur vs. ACIT Circle2(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 599/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

also disallowance of Fee & Charges of Rs.1,94,595/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer computed income at Rs.12,94,17,582/- and after allowing unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment year 2009-10 assessed income at Nil and book profit at Rs.2,48,39,790/-. Aggrieved

Rexel India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Bombay High Court in the case of Chowgule & Company Private Limited (2016) (95 CCH 21) (Bom) 2. Allowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation not granted 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in not adjudicating ... ground taken by the Appellant for grant of allowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation aggregating to INR 4,74,83,007 incurred by the Appellant in earlier years. 3. Credit of advance tax paid by YAPL and ADEPL not granted to the Appellant 3.1 On the facts

International Seaport Dredging Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 72/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasi Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

hands of the Appellant. 8. Relief for brought forward losses; AY 2014-15: Ground 17 The Appellant had brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation based on the assessed loss/income of prior financial years for set off against the assessed income of the AY 2014-15 While determining the tax payable ... failed to set off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the Appellant. Since, the Appellant has losses available for set off against income for AY 2014-15, the Appellant prays for direction to the lower authorities to consider the same while computing the taxable income

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

Assessee relates to Challenging the order of denial of adjustment made by the 2 M/s. Medical Solutions (Ind) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai assessee of unabsorbed depreciations against the long term capital gain earned during the year. 3. In this regard, I have heard the counsels for both the parties, Perused ... From the records , I noticed that assessee is a private limited company and had carried forward business loss of Rs 43,28,042/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 20,69,539/-from Assessment Year: 2019-2020, therefore, adjusted unabsorbed depreciation against the long term capital gain earned during the year

M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2453/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

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

Vijaygroup Housing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5281/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 144B(8)Section 148Section 250

no.1 to 5 of appellants were rejected. Regarding the setoff of the current year business loss of Rs. 44,12,000/- and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 70,12,991/- pertaining to AY 2013- 14 and AY 2015-16 against the addition made ... directed to the verified by the Ld. AO with the directions to setoff the current year business loss, if any brought forward as unabsorbed depreciation, if any as per law. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A). 11. Aggrieved by the impugned order