← 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

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the four Revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 17/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan

Section 143(3)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

ACIT, Na vs. Ari Circle, Navsarivs.M/S. Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Navsari

ITA 225/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

ACIT, Na vs. Ari Circle., Navsarivs.M/S. Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Navasari

ITA 224/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

ACIT, Na vs. Ari Circle, Navsarivs.M/S. Maroli Vibhag, Kand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Navsari

ITA 222/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

Sahakari Khand Uduog Mandal Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.DCIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 213/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

Sahadari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 212/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd., Gandevi vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 211/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

both the lower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed for the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as assessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and hence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed income ... without giving set off of the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years is liable to be struck down. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

shares of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- thereby making a total disallowance of Rs. 4,20,46,422/-. Subsequently, he allowed deduction for unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,13,97,298/- and worked out the net capital gain at Rs. 1,06,49,144/-. The ld. AO thereafter proceeded ... case was filed declaring income of Rs.5,27,73,080/-on book profit basis. A carry forward loss of Rs.5,07,50,613/- and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years Rs.3,13,97,278/- was to be set off against the income returned. The assessment came to be framed

Gtn Textiles Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1) Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 807/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2006-07 Gtn Textiles Limited .......... Appellant 61/464, 6Th Flor, Palal Towers, M.G. Road Ravipuram, Ernakulam 682016 [Pan: Aaccg3925B] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Kacks Joby, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Cotton Yarn. The Return Of Income For Ay 2006-07 Was Filed On 27.11.2006 Declaring Nil Income After Adjusting Unabsorbed Depreciation. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Aluva (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 29.12.2008 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Kacks Joby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. The return of income for AY 2006-07 was filed on 27.11.2006 declaring Nil income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Aluva (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 29.12.2008 passed ... Textiles Limited u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Nil income after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 74,39,500/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 81,59,000/- u/s. 14A of the Act and also disallowed

Sempertrans India Private Limited, Roha vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1778/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1778/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92D

erred, in raising demand of INR 2,11,57,400 on the Appellant. Set-off of brought business loss and unabsorbed depreciation not granted 4 ITA No.1778/PUN/2024 Sempertrans India Private Limited 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not granting ... brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation without specifying any reasons and thereby erred in raising the consequent demand of Rs.2,11,57,400 (including interest). 19. The AO failed to appreciate that the Appellant was having brought forward business loss of Rs.37,11,52,355 and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.10

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 29.11.2016 declaring total income/loss of Rs. NIL after setting-off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.13,86,90,068/-. The assessee company has declared book profit u/sec.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.17

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 29.11.2016 declaring total income/loss of Rs. NIL after setting-off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.13,86,90,068/-. The assessee company has declared book profit u/sec.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.17

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited(Formerly Knowns As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

short TDS credit amounting to INR 2,36,103 be granted to the Appellant. Ground 6: Erred in non quantification of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L'd. AO erred in non quantification of carry ... forward of unabsorbed depreciation 2. In view of the above grounds of appeal, the Appellant prays that the Lis AO be directed to quantify the amount of unabsorbed depreciation that can be carry forward to the subsequent Assessment Years. Ground 7: Erred in not quantifying the amount of intra head

Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

short TDS credit amounting to INR 2,36,103 be granted to the Appellant. Ground 6: Erred in non quantification of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L'd. AO erred in non quantification of carry ... forward of unabsorbed depreciation 2. In view of the above grounds of appeal, the Appellant prays that the Lis AO be directed to quantify the amount of unabsorbed depreciation that can be carry forward to the subsequent Assessment Years. Ground 7: Erred in not quantifying the amount of intra head

Laxminarayan Ramswarup Maniyar, Jalgaon vs. Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1203/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

made by CPC u/s 143(1)(a)(iii) of the Act by denying the set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against current years income. 2 2) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming ... Rs.8,03,196/- made by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1)(a)(iii) of the Act by disallowing the set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of earlier years against current years income from House property (Rs.82,085/-) and income from other sources (Rs. 7,21,111/-). The assessee

Osttra India Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Cr Building, Delhi

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

ITA 3484/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Osttra India Services Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Limited Lgf.A-16/9 Vasant Of Income Tax, Circle Vihar, South-West Delhi, New 1991) Cr Building, Delhi Delhi 110057 Pan No. Aaocm6253C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 138(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

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

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

comparables despite specific direction by the DRP. 22. Ld. AO has erred in incorrectly computing demand by not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation. 23. Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A.” 10. The assessee also filed clarificatory/supplementary ground of appeal under rule

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31.01.2011 determining total income of the assessee as NIL after setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order inter alia assailing addition of Rs.35,89,81,227/- made

Gurusukh Vintrade Services Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 572/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gurusukh Vintrade Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Shop No.15-16, Currency Tower, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcg9611M

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 250(4)

GROUND The Assessing Officer made a total addition of Rs.15,51,680/- and raised a demand of Rs.8,32,970/- without giving effect the unabsorbed depreciation available to assessee up to assessment year 2019-20. Had the same been set off against current years assessed income then the demand would