9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is confirmed. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 256/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2014 - SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 25.10.2010. 2. The sole ground taken by the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing set off of addition made u/s. 68 of the Act of ₹ 13,80,000/- agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y my predecessor in office for remand. Remand report received was forwarded to the appellant for his comments but have been received back unserved. I have held in my decision for earlier ground that the issues which have attained finally in original assessment are not opened for adjudication now having been accepted in the original assessment. It is hold now that the addition u/s 68 had become final and was not open in reassessment proceedings. 4.3 It is seen that no submissions have been made as to why b./f depreciation loss was allowable against addition made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The matter is therefore being decided on merits. 4.4 The issue, in my opinion, is whether b/f. depreciation loss can be set off against income u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought forward depreciation merges with the depreciation of the current year and becomes current year s depreciation which is permitted to be set off against any income of the current year other than salary. Income determined u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act is income under other sources and therefore the brought forward depreciation will have to be allowed as a set off against income determined u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC) has held as under: Section 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
