“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

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

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

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

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

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

Vijaygroup Housing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5280/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

Mumbai Port Authority (Successor to Chairman Mumbai Port Trust Erstwhile Bombay Dock Labour Board), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1-(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3108/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 5C(2)

confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing set off of brought forward 3 Mumbai Port Authority, AY 2014-15 business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the assessed income, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order otherwise. " 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Ms Shree Bhawani Mills, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

ITA 332/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 46A

have been deducted from the sale value and the remaining amount in the hands of the firm would be Nil. iii. The brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was on building structure and plant and machinery had been fully ignored even when data with regard to the same was available ... deducted WDV of building, plant and machinery out of the sale proceeds. He had also erred in not taking into consideration the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation on these two assets, though the entire details were available on record with Department in the returns and audit reports which were filed online

General Industrial Contros Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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 (i); and ITA No.38/PUN/2025

Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 814/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Dcit, Circle 7, Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune Level 3, Malpani Agile,Pan Card Club Road, Baner, Pune-411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaecm6932E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Harsh R ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted allowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred in considering

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dewanchand Ramsaran Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Dewanchand Ramsaran Income-Tax 6(1)(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Flat No. 15 4Th Floor, Krishna Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Niketan, Sion Main Road, King Mumbai-400020. Circle, Mumbai-400022. (Pan : Aabcd7193H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Aarti Sathe A/W Ms. Aasavari Kadam Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061827856(1), Dated 06.08.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w Ms. Aasavari KadamFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 28

standstill. 3.1. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2018, reporting total income at Nil after setting off of the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. In the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing officer asked assessee, inter alia, to show cause as to why share application money

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Builiding, New Delhi vs. Jade E-Services Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2020/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Udit Jain, Adv. & Shri ArihantFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

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

after setting off of Income from LTCG on Slump Sale and Income from Other sources with the Business Loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and book profit has been calculated at(Rs. 860806974/-). The company has incurred loss under the heads Profits and Gains from Busienss and Profession. The case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C. R Building vs. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Asaf Ali

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3218/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanacit, Circle 10 (1), Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. A-25/27, Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) Co No.152/Del/2023 (In Ita No.3218/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 10 (1), A-25/27, Oriental House, New Delhi. Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

Rs.8,53,26,128/- u/d 40(a)(i) of the Act. (d) Not allowing set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.” 14. Ground No.1 of the cross objection was not pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee, hence dismissed as not pressed. 15. With regard to Ground

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2015, declaring NIL income under normal provisions after claiming set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,17,69,30,776/-. The book profit under section 115JB of the Act was declared at Rs.2

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Intl. Tax Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no 1 to 7 are allowed

ITA 936/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254(1)Section 270A

brought forward business losses against the addition of Management Service Fees. Set-off of management service fees treated as royalty with brought forward unabsorbed depreciation not allowed Without prejudice to the above grounds, and on facts and in circumstances of the case and in in law the learned AO/DRP

Skm Egg Products Export Ltd, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle Salem, Salem

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

ITA 2933/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2933/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Skm Egg Products Export The Deputy Commissioner (India) Ltd., V. Of Income Tax, No.133/1, Gandhiji Street, Central Circle, Erode – 638 001. Salem. [Pan:Aaccs 7106G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

assessment year 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 and subsequently, filed revised return on 04.10.2014 admitting ‘nil’ income after setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation as per normal provisions as well as the MAT provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny

Garware Synthetics Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4386/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salukhe

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

applicable TDS irrespective, whether such corresponding credit has been claimed by the contractor or not; 2. Set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation 2. 1. The CIT(A)/ AO erred in not allowing the set off of brought forward losses of previous years without assigning any reason ... expenses. Further, while computing the tax liability, the Assessing Officer failed to adjust the brought forward losses of INR.15,36,210/- and unabsorbed depreciation of INR.1,96,309/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried both the issues in appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order, dated 08/08/2024

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

date of the assessment, there was no bar existed 7 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. with respect to allowing set off against the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation on fixed assets, with respect to income under section 68. Therefore, we are of the view that, Tribunal had committed an illegality in coming

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

assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of CPC, Bengaluru of not allowing set-off of 2 brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income from other sources. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm having income from business. Return of income ... assessment year 2021- 22 furnished on 18.01.2022 declaring Nil income after claiming set- off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income from other sources. The CPC, Bengaluru denied this claim and subsequently even in appeal before Ld. CIT(A), assessee failed to succeed as Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 896/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 72Section 80G

income, without assigning any reasons. 3.2 The Appellant prays that deduction u/s. 80G of the Act be granted. GROUND NO. 4: CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,81,190/-: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred ... allowing to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,81,190/-. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 The Appellant prays that carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 72 of the Act be allowed. GROUND NO. 5: NON-GRANT

M/S. Chennai Noble Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3332/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1148/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

Income tax benefits as permitted under section 79 and any other applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for set off of unabsorbed depreciation, carry forward and brought forward losses. b) MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 11.2 All assessments / appellate or other proceedings pending

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1147/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR

Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

calculation of book profit/ loss which is not sustainable in law. F. Incorrect setting-off of entire available brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing the setting ... entire available brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the relevant A Y against the taxable income of the Appellant determined after considering the transfer pricing and corporate tax adjustments made in the final assessment order. Other Grounds: 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR

Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D