← All Phrases

“carry forward of depreciation”

DepreciationSection 32(2)Section 32(2)29 judgments

The decision most relied on for carry forward of depreciation is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on carry forward of depreciation

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

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.

Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
131 Taxmann 386 · 2003 · High Court
188
citing judgments

The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not permit the carry forward of excess expenditure of a charitable trust to be set off against future surpluses, as such trusts are governed by a self-contained code under Sections 11 to 13, not the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'. However, depreciation on fixed assets is allowable to a charitable institution registered under section 12A.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

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. 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.

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.

CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd.
216 ITR 607 · 1995 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

An assessee is not required to carry on business in the year in which unabsorbed depreciation is sought to be set off, provided the return is filed within the stipulated time. The carry forward of depreciation or investment allowance is permissible even if the business was stopped in the prior year.

Judgments citing carry forward of depreciation

Cabot India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1911/M/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2011 – 12 is dismissed

ITA 7496/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J Pardiwala Sr AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr.AR
Section 143Section 92C

file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to assessee to submit before the learned assessing officer the chart of allowability of carry forward of depreciation and business losses, the learned AO may examine the same and if it is found in accordance with the law, grant same. Accordingly

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

actually allowed, i.e., either in regular assessment or u/s. 143(1) of the Act, for the earlier years, so as to claim carry forward of depreciation for the earlier years, i.e., AYs. 1998-99 to AY 2009-10, on account of it being unabsorbed for the said years. We find

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position, more particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings having been deleted

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

The appeal are allowed

ITA 1573/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(3), M/S Simtools Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (Erstwhile Dcit- 412, Floor-4, 17G, Central Circle – 42) Vardhaman Chamber, Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Cawasji Patel Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1757M Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

issue of approval being mechanical, He held that approval given is administrative and hence, dismissed this ground. v. On the issue of carry forward of depreciation beyond 8 years, he held that same cannot be treated as time barred beyond a period of 8 years and can be carried forward

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

Without prejudice to above: Ld. CIT(A) and AO was not justified and grossly erred in disallowing set-off of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act.” 3. Ground no. 3 is taken up first, being a legal issue, which challenges the jurisdiction ... carry forward and set off of depreciation which is governed by Section 32(2) of the act and there is no restriction on carry forward of depreciation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Subhalaxmi Mill Ltd. 249 ITR 795 (SC). Moreover, according

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

loss of Rs. 1,75,79,393/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not allowing set off/ carry forward of depreciation of Rs. 697/-.” 38. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds of appeal are purely legal grounds

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

loss of Rs. 1,75,79,393/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not allowing set off/ carry forward of depreciation of Rs. 697/-.” 38. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds of appeal are purely legal grounds

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

loss of Rs. 1,75,79,393/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not allowing set off/ carry forward of depreciation of Rs. 697/-.” 38. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds of appeal are purely legal grounds

Adm Agro Industries Latur and Vizag Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4446/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Adm Agro Industries Latur & Vizag Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., (Previously Known As Tinna Circle-1(2), Oil & Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.), New Delhi-110002. B-1, Khaitan House, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aaact0700F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Respondent By Mrs. Alka Gautam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32(2)

disallowance of claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,83,54,673/-. 8. That, without prejudice, the disallowance of carry forward of depreciation has also been wrongly worked out. 9. That the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein ... unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. 16. Ground No. 8 is in respect of error in computation of disallowance of carry forward of depreciation. Since, we have allowed Ground No. 7. This ground has become infructuous, hence, dismissed. Ground No. 9 is general in nature, needs no separate adjudication