← 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

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

observed that the assessee had taken over the assets of Plexion Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. during amalgamation which had unabsorbed depreciation as on the date of the amalgamation. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the higher written down value on the assets taken over during amalgamation. The lower authorities have ... denied the claim of set off unabsorbed depreciation for the reason that the assessee has not satisfied the condition specified u/s. 72A read with Rule 9(c) of the Rules. 22. The ld. AR contended that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

observed that the assessee had taken over the assets of Plexion Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. during amalgamation which had unabsorbed depreciation as on the date of the amalgamation. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the higher written down value on the assets taken over during amalgamation. The lower authorities have ... denied the claim of set off unabsorbed depreciation for the reason that the assessee has not satisfied the condition specified u/s. 72A read with Rule 9(c) of the Rules. 22. The ld. AR contended that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 8870/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.8870/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacf- 0742- K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit-2(3), 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar- CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14A

allowing deduction from gross total income. (iii) In computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order reduced unabsorbed depreciation of preceding Assessment Years from profits eligible for deduction, whereas no such adjustment was done while passing the draft assessment order. (iv) Further ... Assessing Officer adjusted unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to non-10A units against business income of 10A units before granting deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the said adjustment while passing the final assessment order, without 6 realizing the fact that no such adjustment was made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S Bhaskar Lubricant Private Limited, Jabalpur

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

ITA 200/JAB/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 154Section 269S

Rs.17,40,716/- of current year). The assessment was completed on a total income of NIL and was allowed to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.17,40,716/-. Notice u/s 154 of the Act was issued to the assessee with regard to valuation of closing stock at Rs.1 ... assessee, made addition for under valuation of closing stock at Rs.14,48,712/- and I.T.A. No.200/Jab/2018 Assessment Year:2007-08 2 revised the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,92,004/- vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 27/01/2014 passed

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the cases the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have quantified the brought forward book losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, in arriving at the taxable book profits of the Appellant for the concerned Assessment Year. Legal and Professional 5. On the facts ... profession, capital gains and income from other sources, which is set off against brought forward business losses, brought forward short term losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 07. During the course of assessment proceedings, i. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3606/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the cases the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have quantified the brought forward book losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, in arriving at the taxable book profits of the Appellant for the concerned Assessment Year. Legal and Professional 5. On the facts ... profession, capital gains and income from other sources, which is set off against brought forward business losses, brought forward short term losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 07. During the course of assessment proceedings, i. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7477/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the cases the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have quantified the brought forward book losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, in arriving at the taxable book profits of the Appellant for the concerned Assessment Year. Legal and Professional 5. On the facts ... profession, capital gains and income from other sources, which is set off against brought forward business losses, brought forward short term losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 07. During the course of assessment proceedings, i. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

facts and in the circumstances of the cases the Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have quantified the brought forward book losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, in arriving at the taxable book profits of the Appellant for the concerned Assessment Year. Legal and Professional 5. On the facts ... profession, capital gains and income from other sources, which is set off against brought forward business losses, brought forward short term losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. 07. During the course of assessment proceedings, i. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Buildwell Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6905/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini VinaikFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 14(1)Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) vide order dated 28.03.2013. Subsequently, the Ld. AO noticed that unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,28,61,126/- has been wrongly allowed to the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under

Indianoil Adani Ventures Limited (Formerly Known As "Indian Oiltanking Limited"), Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 2402/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel a/w DeepaFor Respondent: Shri K.C Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234D

Development and other charges on lease hold land – Ground No.6,7 and 14 (iv) Expenditure on right of way – Ground No.8 and 9 (v) Unabsorbed depreciation and capital loss – Ground No.10 & 11 (v) MAT credit – Ground No.12 (vi) Interest under section 234D – Ground No.13 and 14 (vii) Short credit

Sureprep (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5855/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande &
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 143(3)Section 1O

Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of preceding years are liable to be treated as current years depreciation and accordingly same is required to be set off against the profits ... claim excessive benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer allowed set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation before computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since assessee started business on 01/03/2004, hence, the first year

Sureprep (India)P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5523/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande &
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 143(3)Section 1O

Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of preceding years are liable to be treated as current years depreciation and accordingly same is required to be set off against the profits ... claim excessive benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer allowed set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation before computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since assessee started business on 01/03/2004, hence, the first year

Sureprep (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2243/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande &
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 143(3)Section 1O

Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of preceding years are liable to be treated as current years depreciation and accordingly same is required to be set off against the profits ... claim excessive benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer allowed set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation before computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since assessee started business on 01/03/2004, hence, the first year

J B Advani and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Paras Savla & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe.Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 32Section 32(2)Section 70Section 71(2)

grounds of appeal: Ground No. 1: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of learned AO and not allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years against the short-term capital gains of Rs.15,11,940 for the relevant assessment year, ignoring the fact ... Advani & Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. that as per the provisions of section 32(2) read with section 71(2) of the Act, the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years stands on the same footing as the depreciation for the current year, and therefore it can be set-off against business

Beams Research Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)(3) (Current Juridiction Circle-4(1)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 1961/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito-12(1)(3), Mumbai [Current Jurisdiction Circle Beams Research Company Pvt. 4(1)(1), Mumbai) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Plot No. 674, Beams Hospital, Vs. 16Th Cross Road, Khar West, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400052 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb4683P Assessee By : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue By : Shri. Ashok Ambastha Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Ambastha
Section 133Section 143

loss from house property of ₹ 1,374,931/– against income of ₹ 3,789,183/– under the head income from other sources. Thus the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 2,880,287/– was carried forward. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Necessary notices under section 143 (2) was issued ... from house property of ₹ 1,374,931/– against the income of ₹ 3,789,183/– reflected in the head income from other sources and determined unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 2,880,287/–. 05. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish a detailed note on nature of business

Cabot Technology Solution Private Limited, Kochi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

claimed and allowed at Rs.125.77 lakhs, as against the book-profit of Rs.87.89 lakhs. (b) Set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation at Rs.25,82,454 and Rs.26,34,602 respectively, as against only depreciation at Rs.9,57,050 (for AY 2015-16) as per the assessment ... record. 2.2 The assessee, in reply, admitted to the error in claiming set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation in a higher sum, even as the same would not impact the tax liability, being still higher u/s.115JB of the Act. As regards deduction u/s. 10AA

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

11.We have noted that the assessee while filing return of income for assessment year 1988-89 on 20.06.1988 declared loss in the form unabsorbed depreciation ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 Janakkumar M Patel of Rs.22,48,941/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.05.1992. The assessing officer while passing ... assessment order assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. Nil and also allowed carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order

M/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)

above assessment year on September 09, 2013 declaring Nil income with a claim for carried forward Business loss amounting to Rs.5,30,91,237, unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 1,62, 16,486/- and claimed refund amounting to Rs 29,15,982/- 4. The appellant's case was selected for scrutiny

The Bombay Hockey Association Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income-Tax Officer Exem. Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2456/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Bombay Hockey Vs. Ito Exemption Ward 2(4) Association Ltd. Piramal Chamber, Mahendra Stadium Lal Baug, Parel, D Road, Churchgate Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaact3149E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Satish Mody Respondent By : Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date Of Hearing 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

For Appellant: Satish ModyFor Respondent: Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 12ASection 250

without appreciating the fact that Appellant had only claimed Rs. 12,14,789/- as Depreciation as application during A.Y 2016 17 and balance Unabsorbed Depreciation of Rs.49,28,304/- was carried forward to subsequent years for set off. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-14, New Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Flat No. 4, R. R. Apartment, 3-4, Room No. 354, E-2, Ara Centre, Vs Mehglapuri, Mehruli, Civil Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi- . Lines, New Delhi-110030. 55. (Pan: Aaecm5231C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. For Revenue : Ms Suneeta Verma, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

goods and passengers by Air. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2014, reporting a loss of Rs.13,28,53,176/- on account of unabsorbed depreciation. Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3), of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.4,98,56,581/-. On the first issue