unabsorbed depreciation — 810 case laws

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

contented that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law in not allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against the assessed income. 46. On due consideration, we find that the ground is consequential in nature. The AO would examine the claim subsequent

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 3004/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) failed to grant the due set-off of brought- forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, despite the assessee having specifically claimed the same. 3. The brief facts relevant for this issue are that the assessee e-filed ... regular provisions of the Act. In this return, it claimed brought-forward business losses of ₹10,24,26,929 and reported Nil for unabsorbed depreciation. The case was thereafter selected for scrutiny by notice dated 22/09/2019 under section 143(2). In the meantime, the return was processed under section

Shivam Pipe Industries, Guwahati vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 37Section 80I

pertaining to AY 2017-18. Accordingly, there was no set off of depreciation available in AY 2017-18 as the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were already been adjusted with earlier years’ income. This has resulted in assessee’s income of Rs. 41,39,786/- under the head business or profession

Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3353/DEL/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax, Circle Plot No. 23-32, Sector-58, 10(1), C. R. Building, Behind Jcb India Ltd, Ito, Ip Estate, Faridabad, Haryana, India New Delhi Pan: Aabce5725G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03 /09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(5)Section 254Section 270ASection 92C

demand of INR 1,38,22,160 in the final assessment order by not allowing set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. GROUNDS PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF ROYALTY 3. Without prejudice to any of the other grounds, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP has erred in law and on facts