“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

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 29.09.2013 for the A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee has declared total Income of Rs. NIL and carried forwarded unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,90,73,215/-. 2. Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: The information has been received from the ITO(Inv.). Unit

DCIT (It) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets Fonds, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4059/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None

Section 74

under section 10, reassessed under the correct head "Business" under section 10, reassessed under the correct head "Business" under section 10, and, therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation for the years 1943 and, therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation for the years 1943 and, therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation for the years

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Robeco Qi Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4058/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: None

Section 74

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

justified in determining the tax payable including interest Rs. 60,06,68,444/- without adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit of TDS to the tune

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

brought forward business losses and unabsorbed Set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed Set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 3. erred in not directing to grant correct amount of set off of brought ... brought 3. erred in not directing to grant correct amount of set off of brought forward business lo forward business losses and unabsorbed unabsorbed depreciation depreciation of of Rs. Rs. 14,29,87.288 instead of set off granted of Rs. 12,53,12,905 14,29,87.288 instead

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

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

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

this current year, assessee has loss of Rs.23,85,13,392/-and out of that a sum of Rs.4,58,73,644/- represent the unabsorbed depreciation. The AO was of the view that business loss of Rs.19,26,39,748/- is not allowable to the assessee because the return under ... return of Total Income showing loss of Rs.23,85,13,392/- The loss was on account of :- Business Loss Rs.19,26,39,748/- Unabsorbed depreciation 4,58,73,644/- Rs.23,85,13,392/- The Return of Income was filed on 02.02.2019 and being filed after due date under section

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА

Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

return of income, the assessee admitted nil income after claiming exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. The assessee also set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.11,68,93,844/- and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was admitted at Rs.32,82,86,986/-. During the scrutiny assessment

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 263

return of income, the assessee admitted nil income after claiming exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. The assessee also set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Page 13 of 32 ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd Rs.11,68,93,844/- and book profit u/s 115JB

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

arrive at a gross total income of ₹32,25,52,500/-. According to the PCIT at the end of A.Y. 2017-18 only unabsorbed depreciation of ₹9,23,52,053/- remained to be adjusted against the income of the subsequent assessment year. However, the assessment order ... concerned , the claim made by the assessee of ₹31,35,42,299/- on account of brought forward unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation was correct and as per the provisions of the Act and has been determined on the basis of assessments framed by the ld. Assessing Officer

Rochem Separation Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Rochem Separation Systems India Principal Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Mumbai-400 006 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Kanekar Marg, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

assets and liabilities as on 31.03.2017 merged with the company as on 01.04.2017 for AY 2018-19. 5. Please furnish the details of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of M/s CBTL carry forwarded to the assessee company as on 01.04.2017 on merger with the assessee company. 6 Rochem Separations Systems

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

undertaking and therefore no deduction is claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act as gross total income after set off of carried forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation is not positive but in the evet of there being positive income during assessment proceedings , then the assessee would be entitled to make

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1155/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

note that the issue was not examined by the Id. PCIT with reference to the various orders passed by the Id. AO determining the unabsorbed depreciation/ unabsorbed losses in the earlier assessment years and therefore we sustain the revisionary order passed by the Id. PCIT on this issue. Similarly

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3620/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Btl Industries Ltd., Dcit, (Merged With & Now Known As Vs. Central Circle-Ii, M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.), Faridabad, C/O Srs Mall, Third Floor, Haryana. Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aaccb0573C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent &

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

computing the income of the assessee incorrectly in the assessment order by taking the returned income as “Nil” instead of returned loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.10,04,499/- and had further erred in ignoring the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 8) That having regard to the facts ... computing the income of the assessee incorrectly in the assessment order by taking the returned income as ‘Nil’ instead of returned loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.67,04,255/- and had further erred in ignoring the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 6) That having regard to the facts

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3619/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

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

course of giving appeal effect of an entirely different year. No such claim has been made in the AYs to which the stated unabsorbed depreciation pertains. The amount of carried forward loss, either business or depreciation is to be determined every year for it to be set off. The instant ... cannot be the intention of the legislature. In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the appellant for allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation not claimed earlier is dismissed. 4.6 As for the claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of AY 2013-14 has not been

Excelsoft Technologies Limited, Mysore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 2191/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Ram Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

extent determined in the assessment proceedings. We find that for AY 2018-19 the total business loss of Rs.26,03,25,930/- comprises of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.12,08,69,248. Therefore, the condition of business loss does not apply to unabsorbed depreciation. The AO is directed to allow

Seadrill International Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4700/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 270ASection 44B

assessee declares profits and gains of business for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), no set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. ] Explanation. For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes