← 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

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysuru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Mysuru

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

ITA 1480/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Mysore Race Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Post Box No. 11, Tax, Race Course Road, Vs. Circle – 1 [2], Mysuru – 570 010. Mysuru. Pan: Aabcm5167G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/10/2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2011- 12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed Over & Above The Returned Income By It On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Collected From Punters For Disbursement As Dividend To Punters Stands Diverted At Source By Virtue Of Overriding Title On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [I]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Totalizator Collection From The Punters Stands Diverted At Source For Disbursement To Dividend To Punters On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [Ii]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That Method Of Accounting Adopted By The Appellant Were Accepted By The Revenue From Past

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 40A

considered by assessing officer in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) also had directed the lower deal to consider the claim of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses for the year under consideration and to recompute the interest payable under section 234B as per law. Aggrieved by the order

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/MUM/2021[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

For Appellant: Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITAT had restored the two issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) i.e (i) disallowance of set off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation; (ii) allowance of depreciation of pharmaceutical division. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not eligible for carry forward of unabsorved depreciation ... following disallowance addition: Sr. No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowed depreciation 92,369 2. Disallowed brought forward business 2,39,16,807 Lossand unabsorbed depreciation Total 2,40,09,176 The A.O stated assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidences to substantiate its claim that the loss shown

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Yogesh ShahFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income computed under the head business and profession. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

ITA 1445/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Rupa GamiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

Vishalakshi Vishwanath Vs. CIT(A) 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income computed under the head business and profession. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

unit has to be excluded at the source. Therefore the question of set off of the current year and brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against Sec.10A profits does not arise. 7. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. A similar issue and similar arguments ... aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon'ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

under the normal provisions of the Act was higher than minimum alter tax erred in upholding the disallowance of credit of brought forward losses / unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 6.21,36,080 by stating that Form 29B was not provided . 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, rescind ... also observed by the Ld.AO that, assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 10,96,72,305/- as amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is lower, as per the books. Ld.AO was of the opinion that, such deductions were not expressly allowed under section 115JB of the Act and that

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

under the normal provisions of the Act was higher than minimum alter tax erred in upholding the disallowance of credit of brought forward losses / unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 6.21,36,080 by stating that Form 29B was not provided . 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, rescind ... also observed by the Ld.AO that, assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 10,96,72,305/- as amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is lower, as per the books. Ld.AO was of the opinion that, such deductions were not expressly allowed under section 115JB of the Act and that

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40

Disallowance of interest expenditure payable to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. (i) Non-granting of set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 3. The assessee company is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of crop protection chemicals, viz., insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and also ... claim of the assessee in accordance with law. 12. The last issue relates to the setting off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. This issue requires examination at the end of AO as per the records. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under ... Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 37 of 61 43. Grounds No. 39 with regard to denial of set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from AY 2009-10 and the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act are purely consequential and the AO is directed to give consequential relief

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under ... Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 37 of 61 43. Grounds No. 39 with regard to denial of set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from AY 2009-10 and the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act are purely consequential and the AO is directed to give consequential relief

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under ... Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 37 of 61 43. Grounds No. 39 with regard to denial of set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from AY 2009-10 and the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act are purely consequential and the AO is directed to give consequential relief

Mirage Ceramics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2630/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mirage Ceramics Private Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, D Wing, Trade Income Tax World 12(3)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg , Aykar Bhavan Vs. Kamla Mill Compound, M K Road Mumbai -400 013 Mumbai 20 Pan Aaecm2513R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C T Mathew SR DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143Section 68

therefore, prays the addition under section 68 of ₹ 78,600,000 be deleted. ii. Set off of current year’s loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT – A ordinary object in the appellant’s contention ... current year’s loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the above addition under section 68. You’re appellant, therefore, prays that the learned AO be directed to set off of the current year’s loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation as per the law. 3. Brief facts

Esque Finmark Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-47, Mumbai

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

ITA 6041/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Blem/S. Esquefinmark Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle – 47 9A, Chunawala Compound Room No. 658/676 Parel Tank Road Aayakar Bhavan Kalachowki, Mumbai - 400033 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaace8307P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Hema Kataria Department By D.K. Gupta

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 133(6)Section 68

which pertains to AY 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 respectively. The said loss is due to ordinary business of Rs. 49,747/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,62,322/-which were claimed in return filed u/s 153A of the Act and not in the return filed ... which pertains to AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. The said loss is due to ordinary business of Rs. 49.747/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,62,322/- which were not claimed in the return filed u/s. 139 of the Act but was claimed u/s 153A

DCIT 10 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Maharashtra Electronic Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8051/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 10(2)(2) V. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Room No. 216-A Corporation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. Am-3, Midc Cross Road “A” Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacm4980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C. Jain Assessee By : Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

required to be incurred and the appellant being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 is required to be accounted. e) Depreciation (Including unabsorbed depreciation) for earlier years is an allowable deduction forming part of block of asset as there is user or passive user and interest received ... fact on record that assessee has borrowed from state Government financial institutions and it has to incur interest expenditure and assessee has huge unabsorbed depreciation as well as depreciation which is legally allowable deductions whether assessee uses or not, the above depreciation is allowable expenditure. We also observed that Ld.CIT

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

assessee, a company, filed its return for the AY 2019-20 electronically on 25.10.2019 returning current year loss of Rs.2,17,87,364 towards unabsorbed depreciation. An intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act Page 2 of 9 dated 18.5.2020 was passed by the AO determining the loss ... returned by the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 30.11.2020 returning the current year business loss of Rs.1,91,61,450 towards unabsorbed depreciation. Against the revised return, intimation u/s. 143(1) was passed on 2.2.2021 disallowing an amount of Rs.81,81,683 towards delayed payment of employees

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.582/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 34 16. The other issues urged by the assessee related to non setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also non-granting of refund. Both the issues require verification at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to his file

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.582/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 34 16. The other issues urged by the assessee related to non setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also non-granting of refund. Both the issues require verification at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to his file

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.582/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 34 16. The other issues urged by the assessee related to non setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also non-granting of refund. Both the issues require verification at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to his file

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.582/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 34 16. The other issues urged by the assessee related to non setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also non-granting of refund. Both the issues require verification at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to his file

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

No.582/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 34 16. The other issues urged by the assessee related to non setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also non-granting of refund. Both the issues require verification at the end of the A.O. Accordingly, we restore this issue to his file