“unabsorbed depreciation”

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

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

after claiming a deduction of Rs. 6,15,48,998/-, out of Rs.6,61,11,546/- (being lower of brought forward loss of unabsorbed depreciation), as per the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. b) Thereafter, a revised return was filed ... 168/under Section 115JB of the Act, after claiming a deduction of Rs. Nil (being lower of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation), as per the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. c) During the course of assessment proceedings, vide its letter dated

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

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

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

after claiming a deduction of Rs. 6,15,48,998/-, out of Rs.6,61,11,546/- (being lower of brought forward loss of unabsorbed depreciation), as per the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. b) Thereafter, a revised return was filed ... 168/under Section 115JB of the Act, after claiming a deduction of Rs. Nil (being lower of brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation), as per the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. c) During the course of assessment proceedings, vide its letter dated

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmisson Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll .CIT - RG. 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erstwhile MSEB was debited to the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee on the basis of the apportioned brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The professional fees invoices dated 31/03/2010, were raised by the assessee‟s Tax Consultant i.e., M/s. P.C. Hansotia & Co., for various professional services rendered

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erstwhile MSEB was debited to the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee on the basis of the apportioned brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The professional fees invoices dated 31/03/2010, were raised by the assessee‟s Tax Consultant i.e., M/s. P.C. Hansotia & Co., for various professional services rendered

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Assessee appearing before us stated under instructions that the Assessee would only be pressing Ground No. 6 pertaining to setting off of unabsorbed depreciation for the relevant previous year, whereas all the other grounds raised by the Assessee can be disposed of as being not pressed. He further submitted that

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Assessee appearing before us stated under instructions that the Assessee would only be pressing Ground No. 6 pertaining to setting off of unabsorbed depreciation for the relevant previous year, whereas all the other grounds raised by the Assessee can be disposed of as being not pressed. He further submitted that

Tata Communications Payment Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Tata Communications Payment The Dcit, Solutions Ltd. Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No.C21 & C36, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb3924G Assessee By : Shri Heman Desai & Shri Kaikobad Damania, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Amol Kirtane, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

erred in not directing the Learned AO to pass a speaking order for allowing carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of earlier years and current year as per the provisions of section 32(2) and 72 of the Act, respectively. 2. Short grant of interest under section ... learned CIT (A) stating that there was no direction in the assessment order to carry forward assessed loss as business loss and also unabsorbed depreciation as per the provision of Section 32(2) and Section 72 of the Act. Assessee is also aggrieved with the order of learned Assessing Officer

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

benchmarking the international transaction of rendering consultancy services; B. Corporate Tax Grounds Not setting off eligible brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation 14. erred in not setting off the eligible brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation available for set off against business income of the year under consideration ... Discussion and directions of the DRP: The DRP has considered the matter. The A,O. has observed that brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against the assessed income for AY 2010-11 since the same have already been adjusted against the assessed incomes

Lokmanya PAN Bazarassociation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1206/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

income. The assessee‟s loss of Rs. 36,15,016/- pertain to such income. The brought forward loss of Rs. 16,99,883/- were unabsorbed depreciation and as per assessee‟s reply should be adjusted against income from other sources u/s 72 of the Act. Furthermore, the assessee raised objection ... carry forward loss should be set off only on business income and further denied the contention of the Ld. AR that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation can be adjusted against income from other sources. The Ld. DR stated that Ld. Pr. CIT had rightly exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 and that

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

processed U/s. 143(1) which was filed by the assessee on 27.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. Nit on account of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and C/f business losses. Balance as per balance Sheet. in A.Y. 2006-07 MSSI Rs. 14, 72,868 MSSIDC

M/S Regency Property Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

officer against Business Income has been confirm by the CIT Appeal. 2. Without prejudice to above the CIT Appeal did not considered allowing the Unabsorbed Depreciation of earlier years against Income from House Property. Same as he allowed for setting off unabsorbed depreciation against Income from Other Sources ... Business Income' as offered by the appellant. While finalising the assessment the assessing officer also did not give the benefit of set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the House Property Income and also disallowed the forex loss and other expenses being administrative expenses for maintaining the Company. Being aggrieved

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

this continue. 6. Carry forward Losses- The learned DCIT erred in not passing a speaking order quantifying carry forward of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the current as well as the earlier years. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. Your appellant ... 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. 041. In the result, appeal filed

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Maharashtra State Electricity बिधम/ Acit, Circle-10(1) Distribution Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Prakashgad, 1St Floor, Anant Karve Road, Mumbai- Kanekar Marg, Station Road, 400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2933K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Ketan Ved Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1:1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271 (1) (C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Appellant.

assessee company filed its return of income on 29.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming set off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.111,78,92,149/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 29.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 28.02.2014 assessing the total income at Rs. Nil after allowing deduction u/s 10B and setting off of unabsorbed depreciation. As the tax payable under the provisions of 115JB is higher than the tax payable under normal provisions, the income was assessed under

Asst. CIT 9 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us:

case and in law. the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing AO to allow the claim of the assessee for loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is lower in the assessed book profit U/S.115JB of the Act despite the fact that the assessee has not made this claim ... erred in directing AO to allow the claim of the assessee for loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is lower in the assessed book profit u/s 115JB of the Act despite the fact that the assessee has not made this claim in return of income which is otherwise mandatory

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

whether, the written down value of the assets transferred on amalgamation was to be computed in the hands of the amalgamated company considering the unabsorbed depreciation, i.e depreciation not given effect to, in the assessment of the amalgamating companies. The provisions of Explanation (2) and (3) to section ... assets in the hands of amalgamated company, in the cases of amalgamation. Similarly, section 32(2), which provides for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and section 72A, which provides for carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the amalgamated company in the cases of amalgamation