Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Latest Cases

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (6) TMI 713

..... ERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD VERSUS DCIT [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001, thus once the Circular No.14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y.2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... sorbed depreciation prior to A.Y. 1994-95 to 1998-99 beyond 8 years, by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors without appreciating that the revenue has not accepted the ratio of the said decision and has been contesting the same since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question of law is kept open, while deciding the SLP in the case of General Motors ? 2. It is undisputed that the issue raised by the Revenue in the above Appeals is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of General Motors India P. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj). The said view has been constantly followed by this Court also. We may .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... er, the respondents point out the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-3 V/s. M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.134 of 2016, 135 of 2016, 136 of 2016, 140 of 2016, 141 of 2016 and 148 of 2016) this Court on 13th June, 2018 dismissed the above Revenue's Appeal. This, we find is on the basis that the Counsel for the Revenue very fairly stated that the issue stands concluded against the appellant-Revenue by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra). Similarly, in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 V/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 1042 of 2015) identical questions raised by the Revenue was dismissed on 20th February, 2018. In this also, the Counsel for the Revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... not to be followed. Merely filing of an SLP from the order of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance. The Revenue is entitled to challenge the view taken by us following our decision in Hindustan Unilever (supra) by challenging this decision in the Apex Court. However, in the present facts, at this stage, there can be no question of our not following the order in Hindustan Unilever (supra). It may be pointed out that the Delhi High Court in Motor and General Fine Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 393 ITR 60 has also adopted the view of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (supra). 9. In the above vi .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||