← All Phrases

“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
73
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
63
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
49
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
39
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
37
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

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Chitradurga. 2. For the assessment year 2013-14, the appellant filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. Nil after setting-off of unabsorbed depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. Later, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

multiple of one. Therefore, an amount Rs. 3173,57,61,580/- would be reduced from the accumulated debit balance in Profit & Loss Account and unabsorbed depreciation of TTSL from the amount remaining after the deduction mentioned in Clause 4.1.1 above in the following manner. Amount available from ... extinguishment of Share Capital Less: Write off against book| Rs. 1586,78,80,790/- losses Less: Write off against | Rs. 1586,78,80,790/- unabsorbed depreciation Balance available NIL ITA No.3468/Mum/2016 Mss. Tata Sons Limited The said reduction of capital shall be effected as a part of this Scheme only

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dong A India Automotive Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 1365/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

earlier year carried forward losses. If the assessee is having brought forward business loss or unobserved depreciation, then said business loss or unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to set off against subsequent year’s income, if the assessee has satisfied the conditions prescribed for set off of brought forward losses

Dong-A India Automotive Pvt Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 360/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

earlier year carried forward losses. If the assessee is having brought forward business loss or unobserved depreciation, then said business loss or unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to set off against subsequent year’s income, if the assessee has satisfied the conditions prescribed for set off of brought forward losses

Daesung Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 585/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

earlier year carried forward losses. If the assessee is having brought forward business loss or unobserved depreciation, then said business loss or unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to set off against subsequent year’s income, if the assessee has satisfied the conditions prescribed for set off of brought forward losses

Komos Automotive India Pvt Ltd, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 2159/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

earlier year carried forward losses. If the assessee is having brought forward business loss or unobserved depreciation, then said business loss or unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to set off against subsequent year’s income, if the assessee has satisfied the conditions prescribed for set off of brought forward losses

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

brief facts of the case are that the assessee returned nil income for the year in view of the claim of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation at Rs.4,34,54,353, absorbing its entire profit of Rs.1,58,39,577. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of ITANo. 847/Coch ... been enquired into and verified by the AO. c) The AO had set-off the entire assessed income, at Rs.1,60,96,610, against unabsorbed depreciation, which as per the audit report u/s.44AB of the Act, is at Rs.96.50 lakhs. The assessment, in view of the foregoing, was erroneous

Adroitec Information System P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), New Delhio

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

ITA 2472/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaadroitec Information System P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), A – 43A, Shop No.3, New Delhi. Panchsheel Vihar, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aaach2422A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date Of Order : 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

that while no adverse remark was made in the assessment order u/s 143(3) regarding claim of the appellant on for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2001-02, it is the original rectification order passed u/s 154, wherein such adjustment is made. 3.3 Ld. AO has failed

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

applying the provisions of section 72 and 32(2) of the Act which mandates set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the subject assessment year. 9. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

applying the provisions of section 72 and 32(2) of the Act which mandates set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the subject assessment year. 9. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

stand of the Income Tax Department is that deduction at the rate of 20% is to be computed after taking into account depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance. To put it otherwise, as per the Department, the income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions contained

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

stand of the Income Tax Department is that deduction at the rate of 20% is to be computed after taking into account depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance. To put it otherwise, as per the Department, the income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions contained

M/S Autograph Cars (India), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2928/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2928/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) M/S. Autograph Cars (India) Private Limited, C/O. R.K.Khanna & Associates, 402, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aafca-0420-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 32Section 41(1)

emanates from the assessment order. The assessee had raised ground of appeal before the First Appellate Authority in respect of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. The CIT(A) in para-5 of the impugned order disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act stating that no activities ... deprecation u/s. 32 of the Act by the CIT(A) . The contention of assessee is that the assessee had claimed carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of preceding Assessment Years, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed carry forward of depreciation

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Duravit India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 445/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.445/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 The A.C.I.T, M/S. Duravit India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 61 Titanium, Ahmedabad. Near Prahaladnagar Auda Grade, Prahaladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaccd3485F

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.D.R
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

against which there was made a claim of depreciation of Rs. 9,22,14,685.00 which effectively resulted in unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 9,07,44,078.00 only. But the AO wrongly reduced the losses against the positive income of Rs. 14,70,607.00 while calculating the amount of brought ... before arriving the figure of book profit. 10. Next ground of appeal is of not considering the amount of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses related to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 as per the Audited Financials of the respective previous A.Y. 2016-17 4 years relevant to those assessmentyears. The issue

M/S. Vogue Fabrics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Panipat

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

ITA 2890/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)

erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing the benefit Page 1 of 5 ITA No.- 2890/Del/2017 M/s Vogue Fabrics of unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee in its petition u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that ... firm for the assessment year 2012-13 as per para 17 of the subjected order has been computed without taking into consideration that the unabsorbed depreciation of carlier years available to the assessee firm for set off as per provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income

Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 999/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed 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

Alishan Steels (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1001/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed 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

Owens-Corning (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for both the AY s are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 2996/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Balla &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

allow depreciation as claimed by it and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 3.0 Re: Non granting set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation: 3.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erroneously missed in providing specific finding on ground of appeal relating to non-granting ... facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it is entitled to a set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the year under consideration. 3.3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant set off of brought forward

Owens-Corning (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for both the AY s are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 2995/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Balla &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

allow depreciation as claimed by it and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 3.0 Re: Non granting set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation: 3.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erroneously missed in providing specific finding on ground of appeal relating to non-granting ... facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it is entitled to a set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the year under consideration. 3.3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant set off of brought forward

Fatehpuria Transformers and Witchgears Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 387/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar MathurFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 801A(5)Section 80I

assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with reference to the profits of the Unit (wind mills without considering the unabsorbed depreciation of that Unit for earlier assessment years, since such unabsorbed depreciation has been set off against other income in earlier years. 3.The learned ... seen from the grounds of appeal, the main line of argument taken by the assessee is that since earlier years unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of power generation unit were set off against other income/other business income in earlier years itself, the same cannot be once again set off against