2019 (8) TMI 1212 - HC - Income Tax

Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - Circular No.14 of 2001 - amendment to the Finance Act was prospective or retrospective - HELD THAT - Issue squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited Vs. Dy CIT 2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Entitled to claim of deferred revenue expenditure - HELD THAT - So far as the second question as proposed by the revenue is concerned, appellant invited our attention to the order passed by the CIT(A), Ahmedabad, wherein observed - the appellant's ground for allowing 1/10th of amortized expenses for A.Y.08-09 to 12-13 would stand dismissed. In view of what has been observed by the CIT(A), Mr. Bhatt pointed out that the second question as proposed would not survive.

Summary

Issues:
1. Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - Prospective amendment
2. Claim of deferred revenue expenditure - Double benefit

Analysis:
1. The tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The revenue raised two questions of law for the consideration of the Court. The first issue pertained to the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation following Circular No.14 of 2001 and whether the amendment to the Finance Act was prospective. The Court noted that the first question was already settled by a previous decision of the Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Court did not delve into this issue further.

2. The second issue raised by the revenue was regarding the entitlement of the assessee to claim deferred revenue expenditure of a specific amount. The Court referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], Ahmedabad, which dismissed the appellant's ground for allowing 1/10th of amortized expenses for certain assessment years. Based on this observation, the Court concluded that the second question raised by the revenue did not hold ground. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that in light of the Commissioner's order, the second question proposed by the revenue did not survive for consideration.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as the second question raised by the revenue regarding the claim of deferred revenue expenditure was found to be unsubstantiated based on the Commissioner's order. The Court did not address the first issue concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as it was already settled by a previous decision.