← 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

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 201/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 96

also ignored the plea/request placed by the Appellant Company in the submission made on 17.12.2021 with respect to restoration of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation adjusted against capital gains on non- taxable income. Page 3 of 8 8) For these and such other grounds that may be adduced

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

assessee has raised an additional ground (Ground No.17) stating that AO has not granted set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation loss totalling to Rs.52,87,09,140 against the adjustments made in the final assessment order. This ground does not require any fresh investigation into facts

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

period to which Long term capital gains will apply, then, said gain would be set- off against brought forward Long Term Capital Loss and unabsorbed depreciation. Further, in case CIT vs Manali Investments [2013] 219 Taxman 113 (Bom.) again the same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 8. Erroneous non-set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation 8.1. The Ld. AO has erred in not setting-off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 2008-09. 9. Erroneous ... Ground nos. 8-10 are in respect of the claim of assessee in respect of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, set off of MAT credit, and non-granting of foreign tax credit. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the above claim in accordance with

Ird Mechanalysis Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4322/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

revised return along with revised computation of income filed by the assessee wherein the assessee seem to rectify the error in the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year of Rs.28,70,907/-. 4.1. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had originally ... Rs.20,99,829/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee had claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,22,415/- and sought for details of the same. The assessee in response thereto filed revised computation of income and stated that

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Enterprises i.e., being 46.43% of the total software development income of the Appellant. 2. Erroneous non-set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation 2.1. The Ld. AO has erred in not setting-off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 562/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dwarikesh Sugar The Assessing Officer, Industries Ltd., National Faceless 511, Maker Chamber – V, Vs. Assessment Centre, 211, Nariman Point, Delhi Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aabcd 8192N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 234Section 253Section 270A

receipt which was not offered to tax by the assessee and thereby framed the assessment at nil income by allowing the balance brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,45,52,898/- under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) read with section 144B of the Income

M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CA
Section 115BSection 154Section 68Section 71

when the AO had entertained the application and disposed of the application on merits on both the counts viz. set of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the interpretation placed by the AO on the provisions of section 115BBE ... learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has entertained a belief that what was claimed for set off against the income assessed u/s 68 was unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years, although the fact of the matter was that it was current year's depreciation and, therefore, part of the business

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

along with other assets and liabilities. It is not in dispute that GBDFC had accumulated losses in the form of unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation on the date of amalgamation with assessee. It could not be brushed aside that the assets and liabilities on the date of amalgamation together ... reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1465/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

DCIT - CC 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1355/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

DCIT - CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA