“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

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

Funds made beyond the 'due date' prescribed under the relevant statutes. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing set-off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 22,82,480/- brought forward from earlier years. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing the Assessing ... learned assessing officer is double disallowance. 19. As per ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee is aggrieved with not allowing set off unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 2,282,480 and further as per ground number 5 the learned assessing officer has not granted credit for tax deduction at source

Calibehr Business Support Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessement Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

Triune Energy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2096/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

brief, are that assessee filed its return of income declaring income for current year at Rs. 24,70,705/- after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2006-07 amounting to Rs. 3,22,36,103/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and learned AO had made certain disallowances

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

expenditure was incurred for the purpose of R&D during the year under consideration. Allowability of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Bharavi Laboratories Private Limited ('Bharavi Laboratories') amalgamated with the Appellant 7. The Appellant ought to have been allowed brought forward business losses ... unabsorbed depreciation of Bharavi Laboratories Private Limited ('Bharavi Laboratories') which was amalgamated with the Appellant vide order 6 July 2017 of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), with effect from appointment date Page No. | 5 ITA NO. 891 & 2573/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2018-19) M/s. USV Private Limited being 1 April

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma

Section 142(1)Section 250

Business Expenses amounting to Rs. 53,84,457/- and depreciation amounting to Rs. 51,36,730/- on account of set off of the unabsorbed depreciation carry forward from earlier years, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. The Ld. Commissioner by relying upon the judgments passed ... claimed the income from business.” 4.1 The Ld. Commissioner with regard to the issue not allowing the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 51,36,730/- being carry forward from earlier years, remanded the same to the AO for examination under eligible unabsorbed claims brought forward from earlier

The ACIT Circle- 1 (1), Rajkot vs. M/S. Micro Melt Pvt. Ltd., Shapar (Veraval), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 41/RJT/2023[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Manvar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr. DR

Section 154

verify loss amounting to Rs.8,33,500/- whether a business loss or ACIT vs. M/s. Micro Melt Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2005-06 unabsorbed depreciation, without appreciating the fact that it is very much evident from the Computation of Income annexed to the Return of Income that the assessee has specifically ... which has been claimed as set off against the income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 consists unabsorbed depreciation loss of A.Y. 1996-97? 3. The appeal is being filed in view of the fact that the case falls under the exception

Vikrant Ropes Private Limited, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 56/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer- 27, Civic Centre, Bhilai. Vs 1(1), Bhilai. Pan : Aaacv 8071 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prakash Bakliwal(Adv.) & Shri Sangeet Bakliwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Piyush Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 31/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Ii, Raipur Dated 20/01/2020 Emanating From The Order U/S 143(1) Dated 12/01/2017 For Ay 2016-17 Passed By The Asst.Director Of Income Tax(Cpc). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “(1) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned C.I.T.(Appeal)-Ii- Raipur Has Dismissed The Appeal Without Giving Reasonable & Proper Opportunity To The Assessee / Appellant. The Same Order Is Quite Unjustified & Bad, Both In Law & Facts. Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 115Section 143Section 143(1)

Rs.7,18,077/- is quite illegal and bad both in law and facts. (6) That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Unabsorbed Depreciation Loss of Rs.2200884/- of A.Y. 2015-16 should be set off / carried forward in the subsequent years. (7) That reasonable opportunity should be given

Tha ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Jaxx Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

additional sum of depreciation shall not be available in the subsequent year. Section 32(2) provides for a carry forward set up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view

Baker Hughes Energy Technologies Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 521/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 448Section 44B

assessee declares profits and gains of business for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), no set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1661/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Appellant had, on a without prejudice basis, 9. claimed that the addition to income, if any, should be set of against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. However, CIT(A) did not deal with the same. Therefore, the Appellant has again reiterated the same claim in Ground No. 3 raised ... perusal of the extract of the return of income for the 10. Assessment Year 2017-18, we find that the Appellant had brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the records and grant benefit of set-off of the addition with the brought forward unabsorbed

M/S. ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4033/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 80Section 80ASection 80H

Supreme Court in case of Synco Industries Ltd. vs. Assessing Officer (299 ITR 444), to argue that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing claim of deduction u/s 80HH & 80I. The Tribunal distinguished the said case on the ground that brought forward losses/depreciation ... unit had already been set off against other income of the assessee and nothing was brought forward either as loss or unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the deduction u/s 80HH has to be allowed without adjusting the brought forward losses/depreciation. However, in relation deduction u/s 80I, the Tribunal

M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (TDS)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3951/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 80Section 80ASection 80H

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

mismatch of AIR Rs.20,77,447/- and assessed total income at Rs.7,14,73,190/- after allowing claim of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 3. Aggrieved, the assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Bsl Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usbsl Ltd., Vs. Dcit 26, Industrial Area, Central Circle-31, Post Box No. 17, New Delhi. Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001 Pan No. Aabcb0639G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Assessee Is The Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Synthetic/Wollen/Worsted Yarn Fabrics & Synthetics Fabrics, Manufacturing & Trading Of Ready-Made Garments, Generation Of Power, Processing Of Synthetics Etc. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income Bsl Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801Section 80I

details filed by the assessee, AO noticed that in assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06 assessee had incurred losses on account of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss in windmill division. He noted that while computing the claim of deduction for the year under consideration, assessee ... unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of windmill division of earlier BSL Ltd. Vs. DCIT 4 years against the income of windmill. He was of the view that if the unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years would have been set off against the profits of the year then there

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal GoyalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Integrated Caps Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as in the admitted

ITA 3819/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 44A

issue of brought forward losses and TDS credit. The appellant has also filed an application u/s 154 regarding set off of an unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses on 13th July, 2015 which is stated to be pending before the Assessing Officer. These issues fall within the purview

ACIT, Circle-10 (2), New Delhi vs. Gutermann India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1706/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115J

erred in holding that clause (iii) of Explanation (1) of section 115JB(2) refers to aggregate amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation as one composite figure and not to year-wise consideration of the amounts of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation for the purpose of computing ... those whose duty it has been to construe, execute & apply it, and therefore, the methodology of computing the quantum of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation, as explained specifically in Finance Act 1987 (vide CBDT Circular 495 dated 22.09.1987) would govern the said computation.” 3. Brief facts of the case

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

besides the TP adjustment the AO further made a disallowance of Rs.70,87,66,411 towards depreciation on goodwill and also disallowed the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,45,93,19,199. The assessed income as per the draft assessment order was Rs.2,30,76,81,305. Aggrieved the assessee filed

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

under consideration, it returned business income at Rs. 35,85,037, which was Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. Asst. CIT adjusted in full against unabsorbed depreciation, claimed at Rs. 1,88,52,496, returning thus nil income on 30/09/2011, claiming carry forward of the balance unabsorbed depreciation (UAD), working ... aspects of the matter, allowing part relief: “7. In sum, the Appeal for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 is partly allowed. The amounts of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from the AYs 1996-97 and 1997-98 (Rs. 34,29,210 and Rs. 28,36,165 respectively) are allowed