Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
Motor And General Finance Ltd. vs Dcit, Spl. Range-16 on 29 January, 2004
12. I find that the Special Bench in the case of M/s.Times Guaranty Limited
(supra) was examining the following question.
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. on 20 November, 2015
14. I further note that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v.
Hindustan Lever Limited 72 Taxmann.com 325 had expounded as under:-
Section 72 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gujarat Themis Biosyn ... on 24 February, 2014
(Emphasis added)
From a plain reading of the above extract, it would become clear
that the unabsorbed depreciation as on 1st April 2002 would be
dealt with as per the last amendment to section 32(2) of the Act
which came into effect from 1st April 2002 and there would be as
such no limitation of eight years applicable thereto, even if part of it
belonged to AYs 1998-99 to 2001-02 when the said limit of eight
years was in operation. This is exactly the case of the AR. The
afore-extracted decision has also been followed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Gujarat later in another decision in the case of CIT v.
Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. (228 Taxman 359), the Chennai Bench
of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of KMC Specialty Hospitals
India Ltd. v. ACIT (66 SOT 19) and by the jurisdictional Bench of
the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.
(supra) relied on by the AR. Respectfully following the aforecited
decisions of the aforecited superior judicial authorities the AO is
directed to grant the set-off and carry forward of unabsorbed
depreciation relating to AYs 1998-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and
2001-02 beyond eight years. Before me, the AR has submitted that
the total claim on this count (pertaining to AYs 1998-99 to 2001-
The Finance Act, 2018
Dcit Rg. 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S Hindustan Liver Ltd., Mumbai on 2 June, 2017
(Emphasis added)
From a plain reading of the above extract, it would become clear
that the unabsorbed depreciation as on 1st April 2002 would be
dealt with as per the last amendment to section 32(2) of the Act
which came into effect from 1st April 2002 and there would be as
such no limitation of eight years applicable thereto, even if part of it
belonged to AYs 1998-99 to 2001-02 when the said limit of eight
years was in operation. This is exactly the case of the AR. The
afore-extracted decision has also been followed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Gujarat later in another decision in the case of CIT v.
Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. (228 Taxman 359), the Chennai Bench
of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of KMC Specialty Hospitals
India Ltd. v. ACIT (66 SOT 19) and by the jurisdictional Bench of
the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.
(supra) relied on by the AR. Respectfully following the aforecited
decisions of the aforecited superior judicial authorities the AO is
directed to grant the set-off and carry forward of unabsorbed
depreciation relating to AYs 1998-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and
2001-02 beyond eight years. Before me, the AR has submitted that
the total claim on this count (pertaining to AYs 1998-99 to 2001-
1