“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

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

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

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

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

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

Jsw Steel Coated Products Ltd (Successor of M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3407/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 31

from earlier years pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 and 2017- 18. The assessee also had brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,99,53,359/- pertaining to AY 2016-17. The amalgamation of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., with assessee was intimated to the assessing authority vide letter dated ... rectification on 18/11/2022 wherein assessee submitted that, brought forward business loss pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of 2016-17 was not granted to the assessee. While passing order u/s 154, the CPC computed the total income as Nil after granting

Prasam Rakesh Choudhary, Girnar Society, Bapurao Galli, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 disallowed the same in computation of income as per Income Tax Act and not carried forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhopoal, Bhopal vs. M/S Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

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

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil

Section 250(6)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, losses brought forward of Rs.1,02,52,172/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 8,01,238/- should be allowed as properly carried forward in the return of Income filed for AY 2016-17 which was available on the record and produced

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1653/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

erred in law and on facts in issuing direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of unabsorbed forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation and instead of issuing the direction, the learned CIT(A) ought to have allow himself the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 4. The appellant ... amount of depreciation on account of revaluation of assets referred to in clause (iia ); or] [( iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the loss shall not include depreciation; (b) the provisions

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officerward 1(3), Jnr, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 475/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 164ASection 234A

learned CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not allowing set off of brought forward losses / Amardeep Exports unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 against total income assessed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. On the facts

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

Alternatively, and without prejudice to the above Grounds of Appeal, appellant contends that appellant is eligible to set-off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of past years (to the extent available), against the income assessed (if any) for AY 2018-19. 7. Appellant craves leave to add / alter / modify

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

telecom sector Under the existing provisions contained in section 724 of the Income-tax Act, the benefit of curry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation is allowed in cases of amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking or a ship, with another company. Industrial undertaking is defined to mean

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 6239/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

assessee had filed response before Ld.AO which is reproduced in the impugned order. The issue is raised by assessee regarding brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation from assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-13 which was not granted to assessee during those years. It is noted that, assessee filed ... which assessee is in appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 3.1. The Ld.AR submitted that said appeals where issue regarding carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss is raised are pending before Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 to 2012-13. In the meantime, the present

M/S. Bay Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Co, Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

business loss on 13.03.2006. The liability under the provisions of MAT was also Nil in view of the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation as per Section 115JB. 4. Subsequently, a notice was issued u/s.147 of the Act and the assessment was completed vide order dated 29.12.2011. Subsequently ... Assessing Officer (“AO”) has considered 31.03.2005) as the relevant date for the purpose of determining the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation under the provision of Section 115JB. - Whether set off the accumulated losses against share capital (Rs.22.05 Crores) has to be reduced while working out the amount

Greatwall Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4158/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 68

income are as under: Income from business Rs.41,86,125 Income from Other sources Rs.9,80,994 Less brought forward Rs.51,67,119 unabsorbed depreciation Total Income NIL Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 4158/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2012-13] Greatwall Marketing Vs ICIT 5. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s143 ... during the year under consideration, there was no prohibition under the Statute for setting off the same from the unabsorbed depreciation incurred in the company. Hence, the ld AR pleaded for the unabsorbed depreciation to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders

Massimo Dutti India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmassimo Dutti India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Unit No. 1 (Office 1) 8Th Floor, Circle-1(1), Ambience Island, Nh-8, Gurgaon Gurugram, Hayana-122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajcm0103G Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Ms. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

India Pvt. Ltd 12. The Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is only seeking benefit of set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 2017-18. The learned AO is hereby directed to address the said issue of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Visteon Engg. Centre (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.625/Pun/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Paras S. Savla

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Revenue reads as under : “whether the DRP was right in law and on facts in directing AO to allow deduction u/s.10A before setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses.” 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the finding of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) deserves ... that in case of an assessee having the business of eligible and non-eligible undertakings, then for the purpose of claiming set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss, the assessee is first entitled to legitimate claim of exemption u/s.10A of the Act for the profits earned from

Ponnapula Sulochana, L/R of Late Ponnapula Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

case of Pr. CIT Vs. Seven Star Steels Ltd (supra). We find that, the set-off of brought-forward losses and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses are governed by Section 72 r.w.s. 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section

Ponapula Sulochana Lr Late P Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80