← 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

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 968/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Him When Factually The Representative Of The Appellant Had Appeared & Also Made Written Submissions.

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act is the simple numerical figure being the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less. Hence, it could be safely concluded that it is a simple determination of numerical amount which would be eligible for reduction

Granada Investments & Finance P .Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1343/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Granada Investments & Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Finance Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known Circle-6(3), Mumbai As M/S Granada Energy Systems Pvt Ltd), 3Rd Floor, Industry Manor Near Century Bazaar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Pan : Aaccm0066F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

further stated that the assessee included the capital gain on sale of 75,000 equity shares of the company after setting off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.5,41,239/-, the total income filed in the return of income was Rs.21,12,30,109/- after deducting the same from the returned income

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three additional grounds mentioned above are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2701/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 43(6)(c)

above written down value. 2 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 11. Ground 11 - Allowance of higher brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 relating to depreciation on purchased Goodwill 11.1 Without prejudice to the Ground No. 10, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... learned DCIT erred in not allowing higher brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 relating to the depreciation of Rs.18,73,52,790 on Goodwill purchased from Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 12. Ground 12 - Allowance of higher brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 relating to depreciation on software

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

concluded on 29.12.2011 ITA Nos.1357 & 1358/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 19 determining total income of the assessee at NIL, after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.38,79,20,733. 16. Subsequently notice u/s. 148 dated 7.3.2014 was issued and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

concluded on 29.12.2011 ITA Nos.1357 & 1358/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 19 determining total income of the assessee at NIL, after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.38,79,20,733. 16. Subsequently notice u/s. 148 dated 7.3.2014 was issued and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were

Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT -14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1753/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemaharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., V. Dcit – 14(2)(2) Prakashgad, 2Nd Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaecm2935R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Department By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee on 14.10.2008 declaring total income of ₹.Nil after claiming set off of brought forward losses and 2 Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., unabsorbed depreciation. The Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was passed on 29.12.2010 computing the taxable income

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

chapter VI of the Act and therefore, the claim of the assessee under that Section of set off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation is rejected. ITA Nos. 295/M/2020 & CO No.52/M/2020, 2383/M/2019 WNS Global Services P. Ltd; A.Ys. 15-16, 10-11 iv. assessee has 11 units which ... omitted with effect from 1st July, 2004, he ruled in favour of the assessee. iv. With respect to setting off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit, he agreed with the contention of the assessee that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in view

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

chapter VI of the Act and therefore, the claim of the assessee under that Section of set off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation is rejected. ITA Nos. 295/M/2020 & CO No.52/M/2020, 2383/M/2019 WNS Global Services P. Ltd; A.Ys. 15-16, 10-11 iv. assessee has 11 units which ... omitted with effect from 1st July, 2004, he ruled in favour of the assessee. iv. With respect to setting off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit, he agreed with the contention of the assessee that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in view

Creative Ashtech Powr Projects P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalecreative Ashtech Power Vs. Acit – 14(1)(2) Projects Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Raheja Point I, M.K.Road, Opp Vakola Market, Mumbai – 400020. Nehru Road,Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400055. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcd1054F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Amit Khatiwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Khatiwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

that there are certain errors crept in the original return of income and computed the revised the total income of Rs.Nil after setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and computed book profits u/s 115JB of the Act with the disallowance u/s 14Ar.w.r.8D2(ii)&(iii) of the I T rules of Rs.10

ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. M/S. Satya Sai G Agroils P. Ltd., Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane
Section 143(3)Section 79

apply to the carry forward of the current year business loss of INR 5,57,05,749/- and unabsorbed depreciation of INR 67,24,989/-. The Assessee also raised an additional ground before CIT(A) contending that provisions of Section 79 of the Act only apply in case of business ... losses and not in the case of unabsorbed depreciation and therefore, the ITA. No. 289/Mum/2021 & 1885/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Appellant should be allowed to carry forward the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of INR 1,08,35,487/- consisting of unabsorbed depreciation of INR 21,79,598/- pertaining to Assessment

DCIT, Range- 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by th

ITA 4453/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Tax, Range 8(2), The Leela Kempinski Sahar, R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach 3167 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 72ASection 79

assessee as claim of cited by the assessee as claim of set off of brought forward losses brought forward losses and the unabsorbed de unabsorbed depreciation in respect of M/s Kovalam Hotel respect of M/s Kovalam Hotels M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. 3 Ltd., which ... year under consideration. 2.1 The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has reproduced amount of carry of carry forward of business loss and business loss and unabsorbed depreciation claimed by the claimed by the assessee in para 6.2 the assessment order n para 6.2 the assessment order. For ready reference, said

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 119Section 139(5)

with respect of the AY 2018-19, particularly on matters in relation to carry forward 5 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Nath Industries Ltd. losses, unabsorbed depreciation and MAT credit etc. However, the AO/Ld. CIT(A) denied the same by relying on section

The Dy CIT, Central Cir.-6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor 302, F-Block, Cj House Air India Building, Nariman Point Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai – 400021 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aagca9648B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Navnit ChoudharyFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

assessee company had filed its original return of income on 29.10.2017, declaring total net loss at ₹.168,10,78,636/- [including current year's unabsorbed depreciation of ₹.37,17,68,638/-]. The return was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “Act”]. The case

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)

with effect from AY 2002-03, the depreciation is to be allowed from AY 2002-03 onwards compulsorily. In that case, the unabsorbed depreciation has to be carried forward to AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 u/s 32(2). Hence, in any case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation claim

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

benchmarking the aforesaid transaction pursuant to order of the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. Set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation 3.1 The Ld. AO has not granted credit for brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the year under consideration. 4. Levy of consequential interest under

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

loan is taxable U/sec28(iv) of the Act. Further, the A.O. made disallowances of expenses and after set off of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 8,57,83,800/- has assessed the total income of Rs.Nil and passed the order u/sec143(3) of the Act dated

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R
Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

corrected to Rs.80,31,718/-. The AO observed that while calculating deduction u/s 80IA of the Act the depreciation of the wind mill and unabsorbed depreciation for the AY 2003-04 to 2006-07 has not been considered. He also observed that the assessee has not filled form No.10CCB along

M/S Suminter India Organics Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 889/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2020-21
Section 10ASection 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

Cinerad Communication Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1488/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(2)Section 50Section 72

company submits that the Hon‟ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) erred in confirming that unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set-off against short term capital gains determined u/s 50 of the Act. (b) The appellant-company submits that on the facts ... case, as well as in law, the grounds on which the Hon‟ble CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation is contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, the impugned set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against short term capital gains determined

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

Power of Rs.91,336/- as income from other source and offered an amount of Rs.67,044 /- for taxation after setting off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y.2012-13 M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Of Rs.24,292/-. However, in the assessment order the A.0. has not assessed the interest received