9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing the carried forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 7,23,04,034 for A.Y. 1994-95 to 1998-99 of the amalgamating company amalgamated on 01-07-2007 against the income for A.Y. 2008-09 of amalgamated company even when the loss of A.Y. 1994-95 to 1996-97 carried forward as on 01-04-1997 cannot be carried forward beyond assessment year 2004-05 i.e. 7 assessment years subsequent to assessment year 1997-98 and the loss for A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 1998-99 cannot be carried forward beyond 8 years of the determination of such unabsorbed depreciation i.e. beyond A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively ? (ii) Whether on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision placed reliance upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Motors India P. Limited, 354 ITR 244 and the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated 22nd November, 2001. Infact, the above Order of this Court records the fact that the Revenue was not able to point out any reason as to why the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (I) Ltd. (Supra) should not be followed. In the above facts, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 6. Thereafter, appeals filed by the Revenue on identical question of law were not entertained by following the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Supra). Attention is invited to The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. While the decision in the case of Miltons Private Limited (supra) and Confidence Petroleum (supra) have only been admitted for further consideration. Therefore, this submission of referring the question to a larger Bench cannot be accepted because as pointed out above, the decision in Miltons Private Limited (supra) and Confidence Petroleum (supra) were at the admission stage and therefore not a concluding view so as to hold that it has definitely taken a different view from the one taken in Hindustan Unilever (supra). Thus, this submission of Mr. Pinto is without any merits. 8. Mr. Pinto, next submits that the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever (supra) is not correct. However, no submissions in support thereof are made . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
