TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation 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 subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. - Decided against the Revenue. - T.C.A.No.385 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam And Honourable Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup For the Appellant : Ms.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan Ramamani JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] following the decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 325/[2017] 394 ITR 73 (Bom.). The special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Pr. CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [SLP (C) Diary No. 48020 of 2018, dated 25-1-2019]. 12 . In the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. G.T.M. Synthetics Ltd. [2013] 30 taxmann.com 83/[2012] 347 ITR 458], an identical issue was considered in the following terms : '8. The effect of omission of the aforesaid proviso was enumerated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide Circular No. 794 dated 9-8-2000 [(2000) 245 ITR (Statute)] 21 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urces for the assessment year 2001-2002.' 13 . Recently, in the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Gunnebo India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 104 CCH 227, the issue was considered in favour of the assessee after referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd., wherein the relevant portions read thus : 3. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue making the following observations:- 16. We have observed that the current year's depreciation is allowed to be set-off against the income from business as well as against the other heads of income and unabsorbed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments on record, we do not find any error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had considered somewhat similar issue, of course in the backdrop of the assessee's challenge to a notice of reopening of the assessment. The Gujarat High Court had held and observed as under:- 38 Therefore, it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess comes for absorption from the profits and gains from any other business or business, if any, carried on by the assessee. If a balance is left ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
