TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d assessment was reopened after four years to deny claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation while drawing support from the amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 by which the carry forward was allowed upto a maximum period of 8 years from the year in which the unabsorbed depreciation was first computed. On identical set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Motors General Finance Ltd [supra] has decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - ITA No. 4102/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd submissions and drawing support from various judicial decisions, including the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court [supra], directed the Assessing Officer to give relief to the assessee regarding brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 6.78 crores. 6. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer but could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the decisions cited by the ld. AR. We find that the issue in now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd 251 Taxman 76. 11. Facts on record show that completed assessment was reopened after four years to deny claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation while drawing support from the amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 by which the carry forward was allowed upto a maximum period of 8 years from the year in which the unabsorbed depreciation was first computed. 12. On identical set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Motors General Finance Ltd [supra] has decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Relevant facts and findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi read as under: 2. In the return filed on 1-10-2010, the concerned assessment years, the petitioner assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013) 354 1TR 244/(2012) 25 taxmann.com 364/210 Taxman 20 (Mag.'). This decision was apparently followed by a latter judgment of the Gujarat High Court and of a Bombay High Court. 4. The Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the reopening of assessment was occasioned by an audit objection and contends that the law is applicable at the relevant time posited that depreciation could be carried further only for eight years. Since the eight years period ended before the AY 2010-11, the assessee could not have claimed the benefit at alL Under these circumstances, counsel for the Revenue submits that the reassessment notice is valid and cannot be impeached. 5. The Kelvinator of India Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
