Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
Section 35D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 5 May, 1959
The observations made by the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.)
Ltd (supra) and followed by the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Best & Crompton
Engineering Ltd. (supra) are elucidated below:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs S & S Power Switchgear Ltd on 8 December, 2011
"In view of the above circular, and also in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High
Court, in the case of CIT v. S & S Power Switchgear Ltd., (218 CTR 701) (Madras) the
entire depreciation that was brought forward to the AY 1996-97 and the net unabsorbed
depreciation computed for the AY 1996-97 and carried forward to the AY 1997-98 becomes
the depreciation allowance of AY 1997-98. The unabsorbed depreciation allowance after set
off against the income of the current year, will become the unabsorbed depreciation
allowance of AY 1997-98 and the limitation of 8 years, as per the amended provisions of
sec.32(2), starts from the AY 1997-98. Therefore, all the depreciation allowances that are
brought forward from the earlier years and were available during the AY 1997-98 can be
carried forward for another period of 8 years i.e., up to AY 2005-06. In any case, with the
change in the provisions of section.32(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2002 the unabsorbed depreciation
once again was made available to the assesse indefinitely by clubbing with the current
depreciation allowance."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 2018
Dcit, Villupuram vs M/S. Kallakurichi Co-Op. Sugar Mills ... on 4 May, 2017
9.2 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on
record. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in of DCIT V.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited [2012] I.T.A.
No. 1713/Mds/2011 Circular No.14 of 2001 and jurisdictional High Court of
Madras cited supra. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of this
Tribunal and the case law relied upon by the assessee cited supra.
9.3 Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal in the cited case
we direct the AO to allow the unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1997-98,
1998-99, 1999-2000 to the extent not set off against the income of the AY
2005-06 for future years. The appeals of the assessee on this issue for
the AY 2005-06 & 2008-09 are allowed.
Hdfc Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 1(1), Mumbai on 29 March, 2017
The AO disallowed the depreciation on UPS amounting to
Rs.6,47,180/- holding the UPS as general plant and machinery The
assessee claimed the depreciation @60% treating the UPS as a part of
computer. The Hon'ble ITAT'C' Bench, Chennai in ITA N.o1774/Mds/2012
in the case of Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd vs DCIT held that UPS
is an integral part of computer and eligible for Depreciation @60%.
Respectfully following the decision of this tribunal in case cited (Supra) we
direct the AO to allow the Depreciation on computer @60%. In the
result, the assessee's appeal is allowed.