TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal grants relief on incorrect depreciation carry forward, emphasizes precedent importance.</h1> <h3>Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-9, Pune</h3> Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Circle-9, Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under section 14A2. Addition on account of incorrect carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation3. Claim of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-024. Delay in filing the appeal5. Request to add, amend, modify, or delete grounds of appealAnalysis:Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14AThe Assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.44,070 under section 14A, contending it was unwarranted, unjustified, and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune. The Appellate Tribunal held that the issue was not pressed by the Assessee, and therefore, it was dismissed.Issue 2: Addition on account of incorrect carry forward of unabsorbed depreciationThe Assessee disputed the addition of Rs.75,43,846 due to incorrect carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. The Assessing Officer did not allow unabsorbed depreciation before AY 2002-03, leading to a disagreement. The Appellate Tribunal referred to various judgments and highlighted the importance of following binding precedents. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, stating that the Assessee was eligible to set off unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02.Issue 3: Claim of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02The primary contention revolved around the claim of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Assessing Officer disallowed the set off against the income of AY 2010-11, citing provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, relying on a Special Bench decision. However, the Appellate Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court, allowed the Assessee's claim to set off unabsorbed depreciation for the mentioned assessment years.Issue 4: Delay in filing the appealThe Assessee requested the appeal to be allowed, condoning the delay in filing. The Tribunal did not provide specific details on the decision regarding the delay, but it mentioned that the appeal was partly allowed, indicating some relief granted to the Assessee.Issue 5: Request to add, amend, modify, or delete grounds of appealThe Assessee prayed to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, or raise any grounds of appeal at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed this issue, stating that Ground Numbers 4 and 5 were general in nature and did not require adjudication.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, granting relief on the issues related to the incorrect carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02, while dismissing the other issues raised by the Assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following binding precedents and legal interpretations in resolving tax disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
