Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68095 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
31-12-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
19-12-2013
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
26-10-2010
Judgement Text
, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER #./ I.T.A. NO.2933/AHD/2010 ( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS 302, SHIKHAR BUILDING 54, SHRIMALI SOCIETY NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD-380 009 / VS. JT.CIT RANGE-10 AHMEDABAD !* #./+, #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFR 9526 K ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.B. SHAH, AR ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, SR.DR $'2 1 & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2013 34) 1 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/12/2013 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 01/09/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2007- 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- YOUR APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER U/ S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 1/09/2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAIN ST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS. ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND TH EREBY CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(2) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2000-01 AND 2002-03 AGGRE GATING TO RS. 5,43,356/-. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING APPE LLANT'S LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(2) REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2000-01 AND 2002-03 AGGREGATING TO RS.5,43 ,356/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION RELATING TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH COULD NOT BE GIVEN F ULL EFFECT OWING TO THE PROFITS CHARGEABLE BEING LESS THAN THE ALLOWANCE SH ALL BE DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE IMPUG NED DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RESTRICTION OF CARRY ING FORWARD THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BEYOND MORE THAN 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS IM MEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DEPRECIATION ALLO WANCE WAS FIRST COMPUTED HAD BEEN DELETED FROM THE STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/2002. 2.3 THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS UNDER: A.Y. 1999-00 RS. 2,82,716 A.Y. 2000-01 RS. 1,35,140 A.Y. 2001-02 RS. 1,25,500 THE APPELLANT SAYS THAT AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB CL AUSE (III) OF SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 32 OF THE I.T. ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO T HE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/2002, IF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SET OFF, THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE NOT SO SET OFF SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD T O THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR NOT BEING MORE THAN 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIA TELY SUCCEEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE AFORESAID ALLOWANCE W AS FIRST COMPUTED. ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - THE APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FIRST COMPUTED IN A.Y. 1999-00 IS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF A.Y. 2007-08 AS THE PERIOD OF MORE THAN 8 YEARS IMMEDIATELY SUCC EEDING THE A.Y. 1999-00 IS NOT COMPLETED. THE APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE CLAIM (OR SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS ABOVE IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 8 YEA RS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WAS COMPUTED. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE UNJUSTIFIED DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE AO MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE DISALLOWANCE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATING TO AYS 1999-200 0, 2000-01 AND 2002-03 AMOUNTING TO RS.5,43,356/-. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 15/12/2009, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES INCLUDING CLAIM OF UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,43,356/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, D ISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN WRITTE N SYNOPSIS, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- THE AO AND THE CIT (APPEALS) IS IN GROSS ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,43,356/- RELATING T O A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02 AS UNDER: A.Y. 1999-00 RS. 2,82,716 ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - A.Y. 2000-01 RS. 1,35,140 A.Y. 2001-02 RS. 1,25,500 THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE QUANTUM OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE AO HAD DISALLO WED THE CLAIM WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT 'AS PER THE NEWLY SUBSTITUTED PROV ISION OF SECTION 32 (2) W.E.F. 1/4/2002 THE UNABSORBED DEPRECATION PERTAINI NG TO A.Y. 2003-04 IS ONLY ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (2) WHICH EXISTED IN THE STATUTE BOOK AT THE MATERIAL TIME RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL READS AS UNDER: '49[(2) WHERE, IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, F ULL EFFECT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO ANY ALLOWANCE UNDER SUBSECTION (1) IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, OWING TO THERE BEING NO PROFITS OR GAINS CHARGEABLE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, OR OWING TO THE PROFITS OR GAINS CHARGEABLE B EING LESS THAN THE ALLOWANCE, THEN, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSE CTION (2) OF SECTION 72 AND SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 73, THE ALLOWANCE OR THE PART OF THE ALLOWANCE TO WHICH EFFECT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN, AS TH E CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECI ATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUS YEAR AND DEEMED TO BE PART OF TH AT ALLOWANCE, OR IF THERE IS NO SUCH ALLOWANCE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, BE DEEMED TO BE THE ALLOWANCE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND SO ON FOR THE SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEARS.' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION IS THE LAW THAT PREVAILED AS ON THE 1ST DAY OF THE APR IL OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT, DELHI T' BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAI USHIN LTD. VS. DCIT (2008) 117 TTJ (DEL) 330. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (20 13) 257 CTR (GUJ) 123. IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON RELATING TO A.Y. 1997- 98 CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF IN A.Y. 2006- 07. RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM PARAS 37 AND 38 OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UN DER: 'HELD: ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSE E ON 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 AND N OT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE SAID AMENDMENT . HAD THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BEEN TO ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON ALLOWANCE WORKED OUT IN A.Y. 1997-98 ONLY FOR EIGHT SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEARS EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32(2) BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 IT WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CO NTAIN ANY SUCH PROVISION. ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMEND ED BY FINANCE ACT,2001 WOULD ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE A VAILABLE IN THE A.Y. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02 TO BE CARRI ED FORWARD TO THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, AND IF ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N OR PART THEREOF COULD NOT BE SET OFF TILL THE A. Y. 2002-03 THEN IT WOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD TILL THE TIME IT IS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. CURRENT DEPRECIATION IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS TO WHICH IT RELATES. IF SUCH DEPRECIATION AMOUNT IS LA RGER THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS, THEN SUCH EXCESS COMES FO R ABSORPTION FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR BUSINESS, IF A NY, CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A BALANCE IS LEFT EVEN THEREAFTER, THA T BECOMES DEDUCTIBLE FROM OUT OF INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HE ADS OF INCOME DURING THAT YEAR. IN CASE THERE IS A STILL BALANCE LEFT OVER, I T IS TO BE TREATED AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND IT IS TAKEN TO THE NEXT SUCCEEDING YEAR. WHERE THERE IS CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR THE U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ADDED TO THE CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDI NG YEAR AND IS DEEMED AS PART THEREOF. IF, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CURRENT DEPR ECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BECOMES THE DEPRE CIATION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR. THUS ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) WI LL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001. AND ONCE THE CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2001 CLARIFIE D THAT THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED D EPRECIATION HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM A. Y.1997-98 UPTO THE A.Y.2001-02 GOT CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 AND BECAME PART THEREOF, IT CAME TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISI ONS 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 YEA RS, WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER.' WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS SUCH ALSO THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AS PER THE THEN PROVISIONS ALSO. IN RESPE CT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR A.Y. 99-00, 00-01 AND 01-02 THE SE T OFF IN A.Y. 07-08 IS VERY MUCH WITHIN SUBSEQUENT EIGHT YEARS. SUMMING UP, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUD GMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A) IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF FOR UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION FOR A.Y. 1999- 2000, 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN TH E EYES OF LAW. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY NOW PLEASE BE AL LOWED. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI AS RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE ITAT HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT FOR ALLOWING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AY 1999-2000 AGAINST THE INCOME OF AY 2003-04 WILL DEPEND UPON THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AS O N 1 ST OF APRIL, 2003. BEFORE US, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AT (2013) 257 CTR (GUJ.) 123. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESS EE ON 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 AND N OT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE SAID AMENDMENT . HAD THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BEEN TO ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON ALLOWANCE WORKED OUT IN A.Y. 1997-98 ONLY FOR EIGHT SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEARS EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32(2) BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 IT WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CO NTAIN ANY SUCH PROVISION. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMEND ED BY FINANCE ACT,2001 WOULD ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE A VAILABLE IN THE A.Y. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02 TO BE CARRI ED FORWARD TO THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, AND IF ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N OR PART THEREOF COULD NOT BE SET OFF TILL THE A. Y. 2002-03 THEN IT WOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD TILL THE TIME IT IS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. CURRENT DEPRECIATION IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS TO WHICH IT RELATES. IF SUCH DEPRECIATION AMOUNT IS LA RGER THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS, THEN SUCH EXCESS COMES FO R ABSORPTION FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR BUSINESS, IF A NY, CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A BALANCE IS LEFT EVEN THEREAFTER, THA T BECOMES DEDUCTIBLE FROM OUT OF INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HE ADS OF INCOME DURING THAT YEAR. IN CASE THERE IS A STILL BALANCE LEFT OVER, I T IS TO BE TREATED AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND IT IS TAKEN TO THE NEXT SUCCEEDING YEAR. WHERE THERE IS CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR THE U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ADDED TO THE CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDI NG YEAR AND IS DEEMED AS PART THEREOF. IF, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CURRENT DEPR ECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BECOMES THE DEPRE CIATION ALLOWANCE FOR ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR. THUS ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) WI LL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001. AND ONCE THE CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2001 CLARIFIE D THAT THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED D EPRECIATION HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM A. Y.1997-98 UPTO THE A.Y.2001-02 GOT CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 AND BECAME PART THEREOF, IT CAME TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISI ONS 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 YEA RS, WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER.' 4.1. THE LD.SR.DR COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO HOW THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT.LTD.(SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIREC TED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,43,356/- RELATING TO AYS 1999-00, 2000- 01 & 2002-03. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/12/2013 8.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2933/AHD /2010 RAJNIKANT & BROTHERS VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $; / CONCERNED CIT 4. $;() / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 9'%< .& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <( =2 / GUARD FILE. 5$ 5$ 5$ 5$ / BY ORDER, /9& .& //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / #+ #+ #+ #+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..19.12.13 (DICTATION-PAD 5-PAGE S ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.12.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.31.12.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.12.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026