Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1687 - AT - Income TaxCarry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - claim of set-off of carried forward depreciation, brought forward from AY 95-96 to AY 2001-2002 - HELD THAT:- Issue clearly covered by the decision of the Jurisdiction HC in Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 194 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and General Motors [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee, as it has clearly been held therein that in view of circular no. 14 of 2001, the unabsorbed depreciation for the intervening period of and from AY 95-96 to AY 2001-02 got carried forward to AY 02-03 and thereafter got merged therewith and became part thereof, thus eligible for further and unrestricted carry forward. No error in the finding of CIT(A) holding that the assessee is held eligible for unlimited carry forward and set-off of depreciation as claimed, subject however, to the correct quantum and quantification of such carry forward on the basis of such claims made and allowed in respective returns of income filed for AY 1995-96 to 2001-02 to be properly verified by the AO.” Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Fresh claim of business expenses - claim made for the first time in return u/s 153A - in original return same was considered as deferred revenue expenditure and 1/10th of deferred revenue expenditure were written off - HELD THAT:- The provisions of the act which would be otherwise applicable in the case of an return filed in the regular course u/s. 139(1) would also continue to apply in the case of a return filed u/s. 153A. We are fully inclined with the findings of the CIT(A) that the claim made for the first time in return u/s 153A is arising out of the AO's own action of disallowance in subsequent years and is thus bona-fide and rightly made and clearly allowable in the facts and circumstances It is demonstrated from the detail of expenses that except ROC fees and listing expenses the expenses are revenue in nature and AO has not given any basis that the expenditure is capital in nature. After considering the above we are inclined with the Ld.CIT(A) that because of disallowing the original claim of deferred revenue expenses the assessee has rightly raised the alternate claim of expenses incurred during the year under consideration for the first time under 153A proceedings. In the light of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same is dismissed.
|