Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 124 - AT - Income TaxCarry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - restriction of eight years - HELD THAT:- The CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 has clarified that the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of depreciation has been dispensed with. Assessee has brought to our notice that the Special Bench decision [2010 (6) TMI 516 - ITAT, MUMBAI] has been reversed by the Hon’’ble Bombay High Court. In appeal titled Times Guarantee Limited Vs. DDIT (supra), after considering the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] decided the issue in favour of assessee/appellant. Thus, the decision of Special Bench in case of Times Guarantee Limited does not hold water as on today. Claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business loss of amalgamating company and set off of the same against business income of assessee - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 72A(2) lays down certain conditions to be complied with before the accumulated loss/unabsorbed depreciation of amalgamating company are carried forward and set off against the business income of amalgamated company. A perusal of order dated 12-04-2013 passed by the AO giving effect is ambiguous in specifying the conditions as envisaged u/s. 72A(2) that are not complied with. Similarly, in the impugned order the findings of CIT (Appeals) are cryptic on this issue. It is not emanating either from the order of AO or from the order of CIT(Appeals) the conditions set out u/s. 72A that have been complied/not complied by the assessee. Assessee has brought to our notice that the Revenue is approaching the BIFR for modification of scheme for which the liberty has been granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of AO to decide the same afresh by passing speaking order after considering the revised directions of BIFR, if any and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. Hence, ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Addition on account of depreciation on non compete fees - no claim of deprecation was made in return - HELD THAT:- Assessee in return of income for the impugned assessment year has not claimed deduction in respect of depreciation on non compete fees (intangible asset). The assessee raised claim of depreciation on intangible asset by placing reliance on the order of CIT (A) for assessment year 2006-07 in First Appellate proceedings. The assessee’s claim was rejected. AO while giving effect to the order of CIT (Appeals) made addition of the claim made by assessee without realizing the fact that no such claim was made in return of income and the claim made during First Appellate stage was rejected. Since, the claim was not made in the return of income, no addition was warranted. We find merit in the submissions of assessee. The findings of CIT (A) in deleting the addition are upheld and ground No. 3 of the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed sans merit.
|