TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as it stood before the said amendment. Also confirmed by SC [ 2018 (9) TMI 1100 - SC ORDER] - Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2019 - S.V. GANGAPURWALA MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. Mr. Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish K. Thigale (Naik), Advocate for Respondent. PER COURT: 1. The matter pertains to Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is filed on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in a case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd. reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 53338 (Madras). According to the learned counsel the presumption is that the amendment is always prospective and unless the amendment specifically stipulates, the same cannot operate retrospectively. 4. Mr. Thigale, learned counsel submits that in respect of the same parties for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, this Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue involving the same issue under order dated 26.02.2018 in Income Tax Appeal No.06/2016. The said order has not been assailed by the Revenue before the Apex Court. Even on the ground of parity, the same has to be followed. The learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Section 32(2) of the Act is applicable from Assessment Year 2002-2003 and subsequent years. It further observed that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an Assessee on 01.04.2002 will be dealt with in accordance with provision of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as it stood before the said amendment. 8. The jurisdictional High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) observed thus: 3. Regarding question no.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c): (a) Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the revenue states that all the three questions deal with the issue of justifiability of application of Arms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
