High Court affirms ITAT's order on depreciation & deficit carry forward for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The High Court of Bombay dismissed both appeals challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on depreciation and deficit carry forward for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent assessee, citing a settled legal position established by the Apex Court. The appeals were rejected as the proposed questions lacked substantial legal merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenges to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding depreciation on fixed assets and carry forward of deficit for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard appeals challenging the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Revenue raised two reframed questions of law for consideration. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee on disallowing depreciation on fixed assets for the mentioned assessment years. Secondly, whether the Tribunal erred in permitting the carry forward of deficit for the same years and allowing set off against subsequent years' income.

During the proceedings, Mr. Kotangle, representing the Revenue, acknowledged that the issues raised had been settled against the Revenue and in favor of the respondent assessee by a decision of the Apex Court in a specific case. Consequently, Mr. Kotangle admitted that the proposed questions did not present any substantial questions of law and were not entertained by the court.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed both appeals without any order as to costs. The decision was based on the settled legal position as per the Apex Court's ruling, which favored the respondent assessee. The court's judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the allowance of depreciation on fixed assets and the carry forward of deficit for the mentioned assessment years, in line with the precedent set by the Apex Court.

---