TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve discussion we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. - ITA NO.4961/MUM/2016 (A. Y: 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - Shri C.N. Prasad And Shri N.K. Pradhan, JJ. Assessee by: Shri Nitin Sarda Department by: Shri Ram Tiwari ORDER C.N. Prasad 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -21 Mumbai dated 26.05.2016 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow set-off of carried forward depreciation of A.Y. 1997-98, 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court the unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Year 1997-98 to 2000-01 should be carry forward beyond the period of eight years and is eligible to be set-off from the income of the assessee from the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 5. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment denied the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation relevant to Assessment Years 1997-98 and 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n losses of amalgamating company for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 i.e. for the period prior to amendment in sub section (2) of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2002? . The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court with regard to this question held as under: 6. Regarding question No. 7 (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent - assessee's appeal on the issue of allowing unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1997-98 which was carried forward to be set off in the subject Assessment Year. (b) The grievance of the Appellant is that in view of the fetter (of eight years) in carrying forward depreciation for Assessment Year 1997-98 upto Assessment Year 2002-03, The set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drew support from the CBDT circular which is beneficial to the assessee to conclude as aforesaid. Nothing has been shown to us to indicate why the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (India) Ltd. should not be followed in the present facts. (d) In the above view question No.7 as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 8. Therefore, as could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that no substantial question of law arises against the Tribunal order in allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 beyond eight years against the income of the assessee in subsequent years. While holding so the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
