Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 1343 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the adjustment and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation claimed for AY 2001-02 and earlier years as current depreciation for AY 2006-07.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowance of Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The primary issue revolves around whether unabsorbed depreciation from AY 1997-98 to 2001-02, amounting to ?57,22,613/-, can be carried forward and adjusted as current depreciation in AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim based on the decision of the Bombay Special Bench of the ITAT in Times Guarantee Ltd., which stated that unabsorbed depreciation up to FY 2001-02 could only be carried forward for eight years and adjusted against business income.

2. CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim by relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years without restriction, following the amendment to Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 2001. The CIT(A) cited several supporting decisions from various tribunals, including Abacus Distribution (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Confidence Petroleum India Ltd. vs. DCIT, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Arch Fine Chemicals v. SCIT.

3. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal reviewed the facts and circumstances, acknowledging that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that prior to the Finance Act, 1996, unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward indefinitely. The Finance Act, 1996, introduced a restriction of eight years, but this was removed by the Finance Act, 2001, which restored the earlier position, allowing indefinite carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.

4. Legislative Intent and Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent behind the Finance Act, 2001, was to enable industries to conserve funds for replacing plant and machinery by removing the eight-year restriction. The Tribunal cited the CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001, which clarified this intent. The Tribunal also referenced judicial precedents, including the Madras High Court's decision in Craigmore Plantations India Limited and the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., which supported the indefinite carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.

5. Conclusion:
Respecting the Gujarat High Court's decision and the legislative intent, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the adjustment and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as current depreciation for AY 2006-07. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the assessee's claim.

Result:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the adjustment and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation was upheld. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21-03-2018.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates