https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778094 ITAT affirmed the appellate authority's finding that the impugned Rs. 2.38 crore loss was unabsorbed depreciation, not business loss, and therefore could be carried forward under s.32(2) r.w.s.80 without being claimed in a return filed u/s.139(1). The assessee's return and Schedule UD supported the characterization, Schedule CFL did not reflect the amount, and the Department's representative conceded the factual finding. The Revenue's ground challenging that finding was held devoid of merit and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:39:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778094 ITAT affirmed the appellate authority's finding that the impugned Rs. 2.38 crore loss was unabsorbed depreciation, not business loss, and therefore could be carried forward under s.32(2) r.w.s.80 without being claimed in a return filed u/s.139(1). The assessee's return and Schedule UD supported the characterization, Schedule CFL did not reflect the amount, and the Department's representative conceded the factual finding. The Revenue's ground challenging that finding was held devoid of merit and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778094