← 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

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2278/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

contractual and professional fee as reflected in form 26AS and books of accounts 5 Denial of benefit of brought forward 12,08,31,751/- unabsorbed depreciation A Aggregate Amount 15,08,31,751/- B Tax on Aggregate Amount @ 30% plus 5,12,67,712/- applicable surcharge and cess C Penalty ... after excluding the penalty of INR 12,08,31,751/- levied on account of denial of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. Further, vide common order dated 09/07/2019, passed in cross-appeal for Assessment Year 2010-2011 [ITA No. 4300 & 4135/Mum/2016] dealing with quantum additions on merit, deleted the following additions confirmed

Carna Madical Database P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1189/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M/S. Carna Medical Database Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., Unit No.518-521, Circle-1(1), Fifth Floor, Mgf Metropolis Mall, Gurgaon. M.G.Road, Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aafcc4758D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2023

Section 139Section 139(1)

assessment order, without considering that the Ld. AO while passing the assessment order has only NIL allowed the carry forward of the amount unabsorbed depreciation and not the amount of figure) unabsorbed business loss notice of hearing was not received by the appellant. 2. That on the facts and circumstances

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pioneer Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1024/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14/12/2016, deleted the addition of Rs. 34,60,000/- made on account of purchase not included in closing stock/sales, deleted the addition of Rs. 3,49,08,598/- 3

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

passed on 24/03/2014 assessing the income at Rs. 3,05,86,225/- by reducing the carry forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to Rs. 44,16,806/-, disallowed of Rs. 36,19,181/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, addition of Rs. 34,60,000/- made on account

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Nagpur vs. M/S Indoworth India Limited, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 108/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

case and in law the learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur was justified in deleting addition made by the AO on account of unabsorbed depreciation who had relied on the decision of the Honorable ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT-Cir-3, Mumbai -vs- Times Gurently ... wherein the Honourable ITAT has opined on the issue of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-2, was justified

Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 96/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 301, Shyam Square Second Floor, Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Pandri, Raipur, Raipur-H.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aagcs7905P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.01.2023 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Dated 30.09.2016 For A.Y.2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,13,20,940/- Made By Ao, On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Production Of 467.32Mt. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Rejecting Rectification Application Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals). 3. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Modify Or Add Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

demand was issued on 30.09.2016. It was requested by the assessee that the addition made should be set off against current year loss and unabsorbed depreciation and such claim of the assessee was accepted by the department and order u/s.154 r.w.s. 263 dated 28.11.2016 was passed revising demand ... having dispute pertaining to rectification of an apparent mistake, qua, not allowing the setoff against the current year’s loss and unabsorbed depreciation while calculating and issuing the demand notice to the assessee. The issue pertaining to the addition of Rs. 1,13,20,940/- in the present appeal which

M/S. Gammon Neelkanth Reality Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2187/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250

time of hearing.” 4. The only grievance of the assessee is against denial of set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a builder and developer ... observed that the assessee has adjusted brought forward business loss of Rs. 3,78,58,412 for the assessment year 2012-13 and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 45,72,528 M/s. Gammon Neelkanth Reality Corporation ITA no.2187/Mum./2023 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13. It was further

M/S. Skanem India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2180/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Akash PrajapatiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and disallowances of the appellant claim of M/s. Skanem India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2180/Mum./2023 unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.4,17,93,072/-, without considering the facts of case. 2. The Appellant craves, leaves to add, alters, amends or deletes any grounds ... Appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The only dispute raised by the assessee is against denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee

Shri Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 309/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, A.C.I.T., C/O-Ateet Gandhi, 3, Shepway Circle-2(3), Vs. Bungalow, Off Juhu Tara Road, Surat, Azad Lane, Juhu Koliwada, Near

Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

assessment order and after granting deduction of Rs. 1,60,000/- under Chapter VIA and allowing set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 of Rs. 6.93 crores and assessed total income at Rs. 22.64 crores in the assessment order dated 26/12/2017

Deputy Commissioner of Jncome Tax, Circel-3, Nagpur vs. M/S. Acc Nihon Casting Lt, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 249/NAG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in allowing claim of assessee to carry forward of business loss and set off unabsorbed depreciation Rs.20,19,09,580/- relating to earlier years i.e. 1995- 96 to AY 1999-2000 contrary to judgment in the case of CIT -vs- Pioneer Aisa ... Packing (P) Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 1981 in which it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1/4/1997 could be set off against the business income or income under any other head for AY 1997-98 and seven subsequent AYs. 2. On the facts and circumstances

DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S Asb International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

that the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act is to be worked out after set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. In this regard the AO has relied on the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 and mentioned that business loss and unabsorbed depreciation ... assessee company in claiming exemption amounting to ₹ 30,17,33,419/- u/s 10B of the Act without first adjusting and setting off the unabsorbed depreciation and/or brought forward business losses is neither logical nor in the spirit of the law. Accordingly, the AO has considered that all the unobserved depreciation

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

under consideration the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2017 vide Ack 270620271301017 declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil. (after adjusting b/f unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 5,81,72,979/- out of available unabsorbed balance of Rs 14,22,06,252/-) and paid tax on MAT. The return ... income was further revised by assessee on 12.01.2019 vide Ack 408128441120119 declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil (after adjusting b/f unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 5,88,10,437/- out of available unabsorbed balance of Rs 14,22,06,252/-.) and paid tax on MAT. Assessee had paid

M/S. Maheshwari Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 377/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation and brought forward losses/unabsorbed losses, however in assessee`s case there is no any such issue pertaining to brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Hence there is no need to examine by assessing officer the issues such as brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, as these issues ... depreciation and brought forward losses/unabsorbed losses, however in assessee`s case there is no any such issue pertaining to brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation exist. Hence there is no need to ITA No. 377/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. examine by assessing officer the issues such as brought forward losses

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115J

circumstances of the case and in law, the Lower Authorities erred in not reducing lower of brought forward losses Malco Energy Ltd.; A.Y.2015-16 or unabsorbed depreciation while computing book-profit under section 115JB of the Act. The aforestated grounds are each raised in the alternative, and without prejudice ... assessee also raised an objection with respect to the claim of the assessee with respect to deduction of lower of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹132.49 crore not reduced from the book profit, The learned DRP held that the above issue has not been discussed by the learned

ACIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bbh Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2000/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023
For Appellant: Ms. Tejal SarafFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)

filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 25/11/2014, declaring ‘Nil’ income after setting off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the there

Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Snr Circle, Surendranagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R
Section 40Section 80Section 80I

deduction under section 80 IA of the Act being nil profit i.e. Profit of the assessment year 2004-05 was set off against the unabsorbed depreciation which is evident from the computation of income filed by the assessee which is available on page 13 of the WS filed

Hiranandani Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1142/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Atul Suraiya & Nilay JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 79

clarification from the taxpayer). In the appellate order for AY 12-13 unabsorbed business losses were not allowed to be carried forward. The unabsorbed depreciation allowed to be carried forward is 21,77,87.812. The difference of Rs 292858569 is added back. The 4 Hiranandani Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. amount ... business loss is concerned. The remaining business loss to be carried forward is Rs 18,71,25,561. The assessing officer can set off unabsorbed depreciation or business loss under MAT computation. Book profit is (84910475). Since the book profit is negative loss cannot be set off here. But business

ACIT- CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

ACIT- CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2511/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

ACIT -CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2510/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

ACIT Central Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Sucessor to Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 2507/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT