“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Napc Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 623/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 623/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1) No. 46, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : V. : Shri. : Shri. : 01.07.2024 : 14.08.2024 Napc Pvt Ltd., No.3, 6Th Floor, Apex Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-3625-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) V. Nandakumar, Cit T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, For The

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43C

meanwhile, a rectification order passed u/s.154 r.w.s.143(3) wherein income was assessed at Rs.25,56,25,243/- after giving effect to unabsorbed depreciation for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, revising the tax liability to Rs.7,76,98,940/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred

Rajtelevision Network Limited, Chnnai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 263

Brought Forward Short Term Capital Loss P. Y s 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rs.85,99,141 3. Unabsorbed Depreciation Loss PY s 2015 16 Rs. 3,09,54,684 4. Unabsorbed Depreciation Loss PY s 2016 17 Rs. 7,48,38,913 Now, we humbly pray this authority to adjust ... unabsorbed depreciation loss against the Total Taxable Income assessed by this Ld. Authority i.e. to the extent of Rs.1,91,10,320/-. We also wish to submit before this authority till AY 2020-21, we are incurring losses and we have enough losses. 8. The above submission of the assessee

Raj Teleision Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 530/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 263

Polakulath Narayanan Renai Medicity, Kochi vs. The DCIT Non Corp Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 253/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Polakulath Narayanan Renai Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Medicity C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Main Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi 682018 Kochi 682025 Pan – Aaifp7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Running A Hospital & During The Assessment Year The Assessing Authority Had Capitalised The Interest Component Of The Interior Works For The Reason That The Work Was Done Over A Period Of Time & Hence The Interest Till The Completion Of The Work Is To Be Capitalised. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Also Capitalised The Interest Component On The Capital Asset I.E.On The Sewage Plant Since The Same Was Put Into Use At The Fag End Of The Assessment Year. The Ao Also Treated The Interest On Fixed Deposits As Margin Money Under The Head ‘Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)

Plant and the interest received on FDs and also raised additional grounds and contended that the AO had not allowed the set off of unabsorbed depreciation and not considered the deduction claimed on the capital asset depreciation as per the revised return filed by the assessee on 31.03.2016. Besides ... grounds raised by the assessee and dismissed the same for the reason that the assessee had not provided any supporting documents to verify the unabsorbed depreciation claimed by the assessee and also the other additional ground relating to the non consideration of the revised return filed after disallowance of deduction

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

return of income on 29/11/2014 showing an income of Rs. 31,54,889/- as income from business which was set off against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2012-13. 6. The assessee the corporate body is into the business of growing, collection, processing and distribution of frozen vegetables with ... against depreciation of 2012-13. The balance depreciation is as under: A.Y Amount of brought forward Amount of dep. Set Balance carried unabsorbed depreciation off against the forward to the next current year income year 2012-13 25199906 3154889 22045017 2013-14 7027382 0 7027382 Total

Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 39/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

current rates of taxes may be considered a good indicator. Tax benefits due to accumulated losses, accumulated development rebates or allowance, investment allowance, unabsorbed depreciation etc. should not generally be adjusted to the tax rate; instead, these should be considered separately. The past unabsorbed tax shelter is valued by using

Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Elder Prroject Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 677/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhriito(It)-12(2)(1), Vs. Elder Project Ltd 301-302, Kunthu Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Commercial Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 174, Churchgate, Near Ayyappa Temple, Mumbai – 400020. Bangur N, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400090. Pan/Gir No. Aaace7387B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 43B

orders of the authorities below. The only issue to be decided is whether the assessee is eligible to be set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ... orders of the authorities below. The only issue to be decided is whether the assessee is eligible to be set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

Trade City Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 678/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

accepted, it Is humbly submitted to kindly direct the AO to allow set off of assessed brought forward business loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) to the extent of income determined for the assessment year under reference.” 3. Having been denied relief by the authorities below, the appellant has approached the Tribunal ... speculative loss. 2. Without prejudice to the above, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given direction to the A.O. to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the business income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountat Member Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No.1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das.CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

directing to reduce the Book Profit u/s 115JB by an amount of Rs. 74,29,230 only whereas the admissible amount, i.e., lower of 'unabsorbed depreciation' or 'business loss' was actually Rs.4,76,89,669/-. The Appellants pray that the order passed under section 263 be quashed. The Appellant craves ... dated 22.09.2021. 4. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT on perusal of the facts and assessment record found that the assessee has reduced the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,76,89,669/- and computed Book profit of Rs. 25,56,81,538/-. The Pr. CIT on verification of facts found that

Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 973/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: the due date for A.Y. 2023-24. In the return, the assessee has calculated tax liability @ 22%. However, CPC calculated tax @ 40% and did not give the benefit of lower rate of tax provided under section 115BAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not opted for falling under this scheme by filing Form 10IC. When the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that it has filed the Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd.

Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

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

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292

order, the ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s. 154 of the Act on 25.03.202 asking the assessee why the claim of the unabsorbed depreciation, allowed by the then ld. A.O. should not be disallowed. The statutory time limit to rectify the error u/s. 154 had otherwise ended on 31.03.2020. However ... seen that during the entire appellate proceedings, before the ld. CIT (A) and the Tribunal there was no issue relating to unabsorbed depreciation which was allowed and set-off by the ld. A.O. against various additions. Now ld. A.O. has issued a notice on 25.03.2021 u/s. 154 through email asking

M/S "K" Steamship Agencies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. “K” Steamship Agencies Income Tax Officer Ward Private Limited 6(3)(1) 801, C-Wing, Godrej Coliseum, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Off. Somalva Hospital Road, 400 020 Vs. Sion East, Mumbai-400 022

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 28Section 37Section 41

Without prejudice to above grounds an addition / disallowance made to Total Income should be adjusted first with the available Brought Forward of Business Loss / Unabsorbed Depreciation of earlier years instead of considering as an income under the head "Income from Business or Profession". K. The Ld. Assessing Officer failed

Raj Kumar Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 575/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 57

current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture and insurance premium [section 31];  depreciation on building, machinery, plant or furniture [section 32]; and  unabsorbed depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income

Kohler India Corporation Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 435/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareeksa No.63/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.435/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2021-22

For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

returned income, the CPC has erred in facts and in law in not allowing set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of additions made in the intimation issued, which were duly eligible for set off and impugned order erred in not giving a categorical ... assessee filed its return of income (ROI) on 15.03.2022 declaring ‘Nil’ taxable income (after claiming set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc.). 3.1 After filing ITR / ROI, the assessee received a communication dated 18-05-2022 from the Income Tax deptt. proposing to make an upward

Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cen. -2, Kolkata

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

ITA 929/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 79

available for set off with the income of the subsequent years, the details of which are given below. A. Y. s. Business Loss Unabsorbed Depreciation Total Return Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Loss Amount ... allowable in the year of change in shareholding of more than 50%, but the same is not applicable for set off against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. For the contention, the assessee company relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Hps Concrete, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. M/S. Hps Concrete Private Circle, Ghaziabad Limited D-988, New Friends Colony, Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aadch0928C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Hps Concrete Private Limited, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Shailesh Dhirajlal Shah, Malad West Mumbai vs. ITO Ward41(3)(4), Bandra Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Appeals) - 9 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") has erred in not allowing the set off of the carried forward business losses including unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 21,92,990/- The Appellant therefore prays that the appropriate set off of the carried forward losses ... granted against the income assessed 3. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by not allowing the set-off of the carried forward business losses including unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years to the extent of Rs.21,92,990/- out of addition made by the ld. AO u/s.69A of Rs.22

Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Energy & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Infrastructure Holdings (P) Circle 5 (1) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6917L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate Shri A.V. Raghuram रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(Cit)Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(CIT)DR

Section 72(1)

assessee’s case is under section 12 i.e. “income from other sources” and by that reason the benefit of carrying forward of unabsorbed depreciation is denied to the assessee, such a decision will not bind the assessee in the subsequent year in which he wants to claim

Dy. Commissoner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hiranandani Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2009/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydcit-15(1)(2) Vs. Hiranandani Healthcare Room No.126B, 1St Floor, Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector 10A, Mini Sea M.K.Road, Shore, Vashi Maharashtra – 400020 Maharashtra – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabch5894D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhivya RuthFor Respondent: Atul T. Suraiya

Section 143(2)Section 28Section 79Section 92C

following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in allowing to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation ignoring the fact that a plain reading of Sections 28, 29, 72 and 79 of the L. T. Act, reveals that unabsorbed depreciation which