“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

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

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

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

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

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

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.769/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Candor Gurgaon One Realty Dcit, Projects Private Limited, Vs. Circle 4(2), C.R. Building, F-83, Profit Centre, Gate No.1, New Delhi. Mahavir Nagar, Near Pizza Hut, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaacu8046K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2278/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Candor Gurgaon One Realty Dcit, Projects Private Limited, Vs. Circle 4(2), C.R. Building, F-83, Profit Centre, Gate No.1, New Delhi. Mahavir Nagar, Near Pizza Hut, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaacu8046K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 270A

erred in denying the carry forward of business loss amounting to INR 8,99,87,136 and unabsorbed depreciation of INR 28,26,29,170 pertaining to AΥ 2015-16. 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate ... that the Assessee had claimed the said business loss and unabsorbed depreciation in its return of income for AY 2015-16 and the same have not been utilized during AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. 4.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Project Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 2278/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 270A

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

addition made should be restricted to the Peak Credit balance. 6. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 48,59,280/- as per return. The restriction on set off of loss u/s 115BBE does not apply to set off of unabsorbed ... want of evidence. 10. Vide ground no. 5, the appellant is contending that the AO erred in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 48,59,280/- carried forward from A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 against income of Rs 1,37,00,000/- added

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

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

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

ITA No.881/Bang/2023 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Adaab Hotels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4677/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Adaab Hotels Limited, New Delhi. 81, Adchini, Sr. Aurobindo Marg, Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aabca0850G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 06.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Has Failed To Produce The Relevant Document As Required By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act By Ao, On The Basis Of Fresh/New Evidences Produced By The Assessee During The Appellate Proceedings Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Produce

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

earlier.” 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.NIL after adjusting the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. Based on the information available with the Assessing Officer that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited cash to the extent of Rs.170 ... period was out of normal business receipts and accordingly sustained the addition. Further Assessing Officer observed that assessee has wrongly claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation, accordingly restricted the unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs.57,64,607/- and also disallowed employees contribution to PF and ESI. 3 3. Aggrieved

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

after setting off of capital gain of Rs.20,43,22,818/- against current year business loss of Rs.18,01,56,760/- and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,41,66,058/-. The resultant gains of Rs.1,53,93,993/- that had been offered for tax was requested to be adjusted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 vide notice u/s. 148 issued to the assessee ... total income at Rs. 1,22,75,860/-. The Assessing Officer further directed that the assessee is not allowed to carry forward any unabsorbed depreciation and business losses to the subsequent assessment years. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

fact that the premium collected by the appellant is justified and as per the prescribed rules. 10. Without prejudice, Grounds on set off against unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 64,40,765/-: i. Without prejudice, the learned authorities below ought to have set off the unabsorbed depreciation computed ... case. Page 5 of 24 ii. Without prejudice, the learned authorities below are not justified in law in not setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 64,40,765/- while computing the total income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned authorities below

Il&Fs Investment Managers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3780/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Respondent: Ms. Hetal Vora

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80M

losses against income Balance Amount of income As per AO Current year Business loss (5,86,14,105) (5,86,14,105) Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation (14,85,684) (14,85,684) Total loss available for set off (6,00,99,789) (6,00,99,789) Income from STCG

Il&Fs Investment Managers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3779/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Respondent: Ms. Hetal Vora

Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 250Section 80M

losses against income Balance Amount of income Current year Business loss (5,86,14,105) (5,86,14,105) Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation (14,85,684) (14,85,684) Total loss available for set off (6,00,99,789) (6,00,99,789) Income from STCG

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

examining said claim with reference to 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed deprec unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as iation and investment allowance as referred referred referred to to to in in in sections sections sections

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Hinal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

intangible asset eligible for deprecation under section 32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the IT Act. 4. Ground 4 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT ... erred in not allowing brought forward of the unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 of Rs. 23,42,60,932 as per return of income. 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCTT and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Esys Information Technologies Private Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1628/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1628/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Dcit, Cirlce-7(1) Esys Information Room No.406, 4Th Floor, Vs. Technologies Private C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Limited New Delhi-110002 Dlf It Park, Second Floor, Tower, Site No.22 & 23 Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh -160101 (Chandigarh(Ut) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan:Aaace6687N

Section 147Section 24

submitted that the AO had disallowed the claim of business loss of Rs.1,27,45,873/- and further did not allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,19,967/- (Rs.9,83,284/- + Rs.2,36,683/-) out of total unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.77,14,521/- against the balance ... income from house property’ and further allowed the 2 business loss of Rs.1,27,45,873/- and also allowed the set off of aforesaid unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.12,19,967/- against the balance income and ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs.2,36,683/-. The ld. AR further submitted

Santlal Industries Limited, Mainpuri vs. Ward 2(1)(2) Agra, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

total expenditure amounting to Rs.1,91,41,247/- and disallowance of deduction claimed amounting to Rs.4,11,91,807/- after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 25.02.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. This appeal

Salasar Hanuman Agrotech Foods Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sumitha Parmata, SR-DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

also raised an alternate ground regarding incorrect computation under Section 115JB by CPC in denying set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. ITA No.224/Hyd/2025 5 However, the Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee’s primary claim under Section 115BAA is being pursued, the alternate ground need

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

ITA 769/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Maithili, Addl. CIT

Section 10B

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd Now Know As Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

ITA 5404/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Maithili, Addl. CIT

Section 10B