“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

Mithi Software Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2371/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 72

No.2 : In confirming the AO’s action of not allowing set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs 1,09,60,556 and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,03,38,647, though duly declared in the RETURN OF INCOME, available and claimed ... allowed. Ground No.2 8. Ld.AR for the Assessee pleaded that Assessing Officer has not allowed set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. Ld.AR filed a Chart as under : Sr Assessment Year Date of Filing Loss From Loss From No Business Depreciation

Vashishtha Luxury Fashion Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1665/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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 ... earlier assessment year, if the same pertains to any deduction referred to in clause (i), without set off of any loss or allowances for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so u/s 72A of the Act, if the same pertains to any deduction specified in clause (i) and by claiming depreciation

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd, Kolhapur vs. PCIT-1, Pune

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

said decisions has held that where the Assessing Officer allowed claim of deduction under section 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section ... Industries Ltd (supra) has held that where the Assessing Officer allowed claim of deduction under section 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

ground relates to the adjustment of entire loss of Rs. 300 crores from the brought forward loss without taking into account that there was unabsorbed depreciation which, according to the appellant, ought to have been considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the working done ... fallacious since it is matter of basic knowledge that book loss comprises of both business loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation. As such he should have applied the capital reduction amount of Rs. 300 crore to both business loss and (first) on the books of the appellant on the FIFO

M/S. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Sri Jayajothi and Company Private Limited, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 2131/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Srikrishnan, CA

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

capital loss. It was submitted by the assessee that the error in computation resulted in a change in the carryforward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation only. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire loss for the impugned year had been erroneously shown under the head income from business instead ... claimed entire depreciation loss of Rs. 16,95,19,999/- (which included the long term capital loss) admitted in AY 2014-15 as unabsorbed depreciation in AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 12.12.2016 showing the correct long term capital loss brought forward (Rs.6

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250

Rs.258,01,15,981/-. In pursuance to CIT(A)-2 Orders for AY 2011-12, AY 2012- 13 and AY 2014-15, the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss, allowable to the assessee company was worked out at Rs. 150,21,12,383/-. Placed below is the Order ... Giving Effect to CIT(A)'s Order: A.Y. Nature of B/F UAD and Bd/F Business Appeal Effect Order Amount loss Date 2011-12 Unabsorbed Depreciation 07.10.2015 5,02,52,912 2012-13 Unabsorbed Depreciation 20.04.2017 6,75,07,378 2013-14 Unabsorbed Depreciation

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sri Lakshmi Electro Smelters Private Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1969/CHNY/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Mr.K.Balasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 51(1)

concession made by the respondent assessee company. The AO also denied the claim made during the course of assessment proceedings for set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,00,06,636/- and carry forward business loss of Rs.14,87,948/- by holding that the respondent assessee company had failed ... above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO ought to have allowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss against the business income determined. Further, contended that the addition made on account of disbelieving the sundry creditors on receipt of advance against the supply

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Trimaster Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 955/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3742/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Spectris Technologies P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 201-B, Second Floor, Vs. Ward-9(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No.Aagcs6654R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 92

benefit of brought forwarddepreciation of Rs. 1,08,61,406/- as claimed by the Appellant and further erred in notallowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,52,06,777/- as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income filed. 6.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

ITAT - by IT Department SI no. ITA No. Of Departmental Appeal Assesemnt year Under Section 300/R/17 AY 09-10 302/R/17 AY 11-12 1 Unabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT order Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3) 263/143(3) 147/143(3) 2,30,09,91,962 3 Contractual ... Total Rs. 29,00,32,000 2,31,42,55,288 3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

ITAT - by IT Department SI no. ITA No. Of Departmental Appeal 300/R/17 302/R/17 Assesemnt year AY 09-10 AY 11-12 Under Section 1 Unabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT order Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3) 263/143(3) 147/143(3) 2,30,09,91,962 3 Contractual ... Total Rs. 29,00,32,000 2,31,42,55,288 3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

ITAT - by IT Department SI no. ITA No. Of Departmental Appeal Assesemnt year 300/R/17 302/R/17 AY 09-10 AY 11-12 Under Section 1 Unabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT order Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3) 263/143(3) 147/143(3) 2,30,09,91,962 3 Contractual ... Total Rs. 29,00,32,000 2,31,42,55,288 3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 32(2)

specifying the issues involved in the appeals of the revenue, which reads as follows :- 3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee ... take up the appeal of ITA No. 298/Ran/2017 filed by the revenue. At the time of hearing before this Tribunal, ld. DR submitted that unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be carried forward for a period of 8 years as per 1996 amendment regarding the provisions of section

Satara Engineering Projects and Equipments Private Limited, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Satara

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M; (ii) without set-off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A where such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in sub-clause (i). Explanation ... cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of section 115BAA and this section, the expression "unabsorbed depreciation" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 595/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited 6Th Floor-1, Plot 165, 161/169 Hirachand Fulchand Trust Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aahcs0312H V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(3)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

facts in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing officer in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs.20,27,918/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.35,956/- while assessing total income.” 3. Ground No.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the disallowance of interest expenses on loans ... statistical purposes. 6 13. Ground No.3 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to not allowing the set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation while assessing the total income. 14. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In its appeal before

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

software expenses considered to be depreciable capital expenditure in completed assessment proceedings of AY 2007-08. 5. Ground 5 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... erred in not allowing brought forward of the unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 of Rs. 23,42,932 as per return of income. 5.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing brought

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

software expenses considered to be depreciable capital expenditure in completed assessment proceedings of AY 2007-08. 5. Ground 5 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 ITAs No.1236/Mum/2016, 577/Mum/2017, 7393/Mum/2017 & 7294/Mum /2018 | (AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) 5.1 On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing brought forward of the unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 of Rs. 23,42,932 as per return of income. 5.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)