9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether unabsorbed depreciation of the firm for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1980-81 is allowable for set-off against the income of the assessment year 1982-83? Analysis: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed the issue of allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a firm for specific assessment years against the income of another assessment year. The assessee, a registered firm, had unabsorbed depreciation from the years 1977-78 to 1980-81, which was not allowed as set-off by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1981-82. This decision was upheld by the appellate authorities and the Tribunal. The assessee then sought set-off for the year 1982-83, leading to the current legal challenge. The court considered the legislative intent and relevant case law to determine the eligibility of carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation. The court emphasized that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely, unlike unabsorbed losses which have an 8-year limit for carry-forward. The court examined the arguments presented by both parties' counsels. The applicant's counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the set-off, citing precedents such as CIT v. R. J. Trivedi and Sons and Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT. The court referred to the R. J. Trivedi and Sons case, highlighting the distinction between depreciation and actual loss in the context of carrying forward losses in the hands of a partner of a firm. The court also referenced the Garden Silk Weaving Factory case, emphasizing the unlimited carry-forward provision for unabsorbed depreciation. Based on these precedents and legislative provisions, the court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous in denying the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the year 1982-83. In its judgment, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the assessment year 1982-83. The court highlighted the perpetual nature of carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation and directed the Tribunal to take necessary actions in line with the ruling. The court did not award costs to either party but fixed the counsel fee for each side.
|
