“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

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1841/CHNY/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

assessee for re- opening the assessment framed on 31.03.2006 (refer Page No.4 of Assessment order), he [AO] denied the carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation from M/s.UPSL and made an addition of Rs.1,25,32,085/- and thereafter also made an addition of Rs.4,11,40,145/- u/s.41 ... claiming the reliefs including the benefit u/s.72A of the Act relating to availing the unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s.UCAL Power Systems Ltd (UPSL) available to M/s.UPSL as on 01.07.2002. And that the AO also allowed the benefit u/s.72A of the Act to the assessee company/BTACL. However

Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

appeal merely by relying on the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. The Assessing Officer & CIT(A) erred in not considering the unabsorbed losses & Unabsorbed depreciation, thus demonstrating a heedless manner of assessment and appeal. 5. The Assessing Officer misguided himself in calculating fair value due to a non-constructive

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Laurus Labs Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 203/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR

Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

Visakhapatnam District. It filed the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 30/03/2018, admitting ‘Nil’ income after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. Assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Assessee further claimed weighted deduction in respect of clinical

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Laurus Labs Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 202/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR

Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Laurus Labs Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 201/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR

Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

Laurus Labs Limited, Vishakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 121/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR

Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

public listed limited company, filed return of income on 31/10/2017 declaring total income at ‘Nil’ under normal provisions of the Act after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses of preceding years amounting to INR 22,13,95,674/-. In the return of income, the Book profits under

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

The Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Limited No.679, Alappuzha vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Alappuzha

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

ITA 208/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

same. This is against the cannons of taxation. 5) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not granting set off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years without assigning any reason. 6) The learned Assessing Officer ought to have considered the income and expenses as per audited accounts ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and the addition be deleted and Assessing Officer directed to allow carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.” 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the accounts of the assessee are audited by the co-operative department and therefore

T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1803/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 391

allowed the brought forward loss without proper enquiry. 6. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the details of the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation were provided during the course of assessment. 7. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the net profit of the appellant should have been ... purpose of demerger. Therefore, provisions of section 35DD of the Act are not applicable; ii. The Company has only carried forward the losses and unabsorbed depreciation directly relatable to the ‘Telecommunication and Networking Division’ as per section 72A(4)(a) of the Act. The appellant also submitted that the benefit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Akola Circle, Akola vs. Akola Urban Co-Oprative Bank Ltd, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

reported loss for assessment year 2015– 16 at ` 12,39,52,307. The assessee has claimed carry forward of business loss along with unabsorbed depreciation for current year as well as preceding year. The assessee filed its revised return on 01/10/2015, claiming TDS which remained to be claimed in original

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 is allowed

ITA 3278/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us The Effective Ground Which Has Been Raised Is Ground No.3, Wherein Assessee Has Challenged That Gst Amount Cannot Be Considered For The Purpose Of Computing Presumptive Income U/S.44B Of The Act. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The

Section 143(3)Section 44B

foreign business or on the basis of "voyage accounts". Difficult and complicated issues arise in such assessments, particularly in relation to depreciation (including unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years), the balancing charge/allowance and the apportionment of overhead expenses. With a view to simplifying and rationalizing the assessments in such cases

Jagat Pal Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2079/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80G

rectification u/s 154 as there were certain mistakes in the assessment order. The mistakes included non-adjustment of brought forward losses; non-adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and non- Jagatpal Gupta Vs. ACIT adjustment of eligible deduction under section 80G of the Act. The application for rectification has been disposed

Jagatpal Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1688/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80G

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &

Section 154Section 250Section 32

stock in trade as provided under section 43C of the Act. iii. Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc under the provisions of section 72A of the Act. iv. Exemption of capital gains in the hands

Nlc India Limited, Cuddalore vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 271/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 14A

declaring income of Rs. Rs. 16,25,56,24,530/- after setting off of brought forwarded business loss and unabsorbed depreciation and a Book Profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 21,29,96,86,653/-. Subsequently, the Appellant’s case was selected for scrutiny under Compulsory selection criteria and notice

Nlc India Limited, Cuddalore vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 14A

Energy-Mission Machineries (India) Private Limited, Ahemadabad vs. Circle 2(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

filed return of income declaring 4 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income of Ra 24,000/- after claiming set-off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter AO after approval from competent authority- initiated reassessment proceedings ... Naveen Jewellers. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 24,000/- after claiming set-off of b/f losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) and no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued. Thereafter Ld. A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice