2014 (7) TMI 1190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. For the Appellant : Shri U.C. Jain, Shri Gautam Baid & Shri Rajendra Jain For the Respondent : Shri N.A. Joshi - D.R. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 26/08/2013 of Ld. CIT(A), Jodhpur. 2 Registry pointed out that this appeal is barred by limitation of 11 days. Learned D.R. submitted that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal on 13/11/2013. It was submitted that the Registry wrongly pointed out that there was delay in filing the appeal by the department bec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. Facts relating to this issue, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown unabsorbed brought forward depreciation of Rs. 36,30,106/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 48,36,597/- for the A.Y. 2007-08. However, as per assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 the same is at Rs. 23,92,806/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 39,98,200/- for A.Y. 2007-08. Accordingly, excess depreciation of Rs. 20,75,697/- i.e. Rs. 12,37,300/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 8,38,397/- for A.Y. 2007-08 claimed by the assessee was disallowed. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the issue relating to claim of depreciation had been considered by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shree Ram Gum & Chemicals (the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt) from the profit of eligible business. 9. Facts relating to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee claimed the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for a sum of Rs. 17,90,010/- from the income generated on wind mill. The Assessing Officer held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was first to be set off against the profit of the eligible business and then from the balance profit deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was to be allowed. Since in the present case, the profit of the eligible business against which brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was first set off and after setting of the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation there was no profit left, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. 10. Being aggrieved, the....