“unabsorbed depreciation”

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletrafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

directing to reduce the Book Profit u/s 115JB by an amount of Rs. 74,29,230 only whereas the admissible amount, i.e., lower of 'unabsorbed depreciation' or 'business loss' was actually Rs.4,75,89,669. The Appellants pray that the order passed under section 263 be quashed. The Appellant craves ... Mumbai. profits u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.5,05,46,247/-, after claiming set off of lower of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as per the books of accounts, to the extent of book profit of Rs. 4,76,89,669/-. Subsequently, the case was selected

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO by disallowing set off of c/f losses and unabsorbed depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act without considering the provision of section 2(18) of the Act and section 3(iv) of Companies ... Without prejudice to above: Ld. CIT(A) and AO was not justified and grossly erred in disallowing set-off of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act.” 3. Ground no. 3 is taken up first, being a legal issue, which challenges the jurisdiction

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

deduction under section 80-IC accordingly. The claim of the Appellant be accepted in toto. 17. Set off of brought forward Business loss and unabsorbed depreciation relating to demerged business of Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited (MTBL) The learned ACIT has allowed set off for brought forward business loss ... unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 5,36,09,83,914/- relating to demerged business of MTBL instead of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 11,43,84,65,793/- as claimed in the Return of income based on the `Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No.7287/Mum./2018 assessment orders passed

Gabriel India Limited, 29Th Milestone vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Ri Om Prakashri. Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailआ.अ.सं.185/मुं/2022 िन.व.2014-15

number 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 040. Ground no 6 is with respect to granting carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Ld AO is directed to compute the same in accordance with law. Thus Ground no 6 is allowed.” 10. The finding of the Tribunal

ACIT Central Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mariana Infrastructurte Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

read with clause (iv) of the Explanation fo section 115J, permits reduction in the net profit to the extent of past losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less. This makes the legislative intent clear if unabsorbed depreciation can be reduced from the net profit to arrive at book profit, there

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

From perusal of the assessment records, it is understood that the refund had arisen due to set off of carry-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the previous years. These aspects regarding allowability and genuineness of the set-off would be required to be verified, together with source ... claim that income corresponding to TDS has been offered in the ITR. ii. Non-verification of allowability and set-off for business loss and unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. iii. Non-verification of source of purchase of shares. 9 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind

Ingredion India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Income Tax Officer Ingredion India Pvt. Ltd 15(20)(1) 1605 Rupa Solitaire, Millennium Business Park, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Thane, Belapur Rd, Mahape, M.K.Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 710 Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecc1920C Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved. Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 20.10.2022. O R D E R

following grounds: The grounds stated here under are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. Direct Tax- Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not setting- off the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 94,63,449/- as determined by order dated 24 June 2016 giving effect ... current assessment year. Further, the Appellant submits that has no objection for the withdrawal of the set-off in respect of aforesaid unabsorbed depreciation allowed in A.Y. 2013-14, if allowed in A.Y. 2012- 13. Transfer Pricing: 1. The learned Assessing Officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) under the directions

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Peninsula Land Ltd., 3. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow depreciation @60%. GROUND IV: Non Consideration of unabsorbed depreciation: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... considering set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from house property, income from long term capital gain and income from other sources. 2. Further he erred in upholding the action of the AO in not considering set off of the unabsorbed depreciation available to the Appellant on account of demerger

Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Peninsula Land Ltd., 3. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow depreciation @60%. GROUND IV: Non Consideration of unabsorbed depreciation: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... considering set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from house property, income from long term capital gain and income from other sources. 2. Further he erred in upholding the action of the AO in not considering set off of the unabsorbed depreciation available to the Appellant on account of demerger

M/S Pmt Machines Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Mumbai Central Cir, 2(4), Mumbai

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

same are wrong and insufficient. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-giving of set-off of assessed brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,61,91,670/- in computation of total assessed income. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient

Pmt Machines Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Central Circle, 2(4), Mumbai

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

same are wrong and insufficient. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-giving of set-off of assessed brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,61,91,670/- in computation of total assessed income. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 67,35,500 in the computation sheet 35. Erred in not considering the effect of unabsorbed depreciation ... allowed for statistical purposes. 12. The Ground No. 35 raised by the assessee is with regard to non- granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation as per the computation sheet. It was submitted that in the draft assessment order passed by the ld. AO which was upheld

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 67,35,500 in the computation sheet 35. Erred in not considering the effect of unabsorbed depreciation ... allowed for statistical purposes. 12. The Ground No. 35 raised by the assessee is with regard to non- granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation as per the computation sheet. It was submitted that in the draft assessment order passed by the ld. AO which was upheld

31 Infotechconsultancy Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () 3I Infotech Consultancy Services Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited, Tower No.5, 3Rd To 6Th Tax-11(3)(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Floors, International Infortech Park Bhavan, Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan : Aaacz3181E Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,56,99,159/- under section 72A read with section 2(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. Subsequent to this, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the I.T. Act on the information received by the Assessing Officer

M/S Privasia Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

fulfilled all the conditions prescribed u/s 72 of the Act and hence would be eligible for set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation with the business income of the year under consideration. However, the lower authorities had observed that since the return of income for the Asst

DCIT Cent -Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-1(2), 511, Dalamal Towers, 211, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mumbai-400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs1269E Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Nihar Mehta & Jayesh B. Kapani, Cas’ Revenue By : Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

Difference in depreciation in block (14651234) fixed assets as per international transaction Act, 1961 Provision for doubtful advances 20294937 Unabsorbed business loss 254687910 Unabsorbed depreciation 20548185 Deferred tax assets 280879798 Deferred tax assets recognized in the 270000000 financial statements 11.2 It is observed that deferred tax assets include unabsorbed business ... deffered tax assets amounting to Rs.27,00,00,000/- should not be disallowed as this includes provision for doubtful advances, unabsorbed business loss, unabsorbed depreciation etc which are not relatable to the stock and not a part of e–auction. In response to that, the assessee could not furnish