9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith effect from 01.04.2002 was to remove the cap which meant that the previously limited benefit was now not subjected to such restrictions. We also do not agree with the Revenue’s contention with respect to non-application of mind. In view of the interpretation adopted by this Court, the occasion for disallowing itself would not have arisen given that the limit of eight years which existed prior to 2002 had been done away with on account of the amendment. This contention too is, therefore, rejected. - W. P. (C) 742/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Najmi Waziri, JJ. For the Petitioner : Appearance not given For the Respondents : Sh. Ashok. K. Manchanda, Advocate ORDER 1. The petitioner/assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation loss of ₹ 52236.11 lakhs AY 1991-92 to 1996-97) was allowed to be carried forward for next assessment years. It was further found out that depreciation loss up to the AY 1996-97 cannot be carried forward for more than eight years for being set of as per income tax act starting from AY 1997-98 but the assessing officer allowed depreciation loss of ₹ 5236.11 lakhs of AY 1991-92 to 1996-97 in relevant previous year which is twelve years. Therefore, depreciation loss of ₹ 5236.11 lakhs should not have been allowed to be carried forward. The mistake resulted in excess carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation loss of ₹ 5236.11 lakhs involving potential tax effect of ₹ 1779.75 lakhs. 3. The petitioner conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be impeached. 5. The Kelvinator s case (supra) is as conclusive as any other precedent as to the considerations that can weigh with the Revenue for validly reopening any concluded assessment that the assessee had claimed a set-off in terms of the then existing Section 32(2) of the Act in 2008-09, is not a disputed fact. The view taken by the Assessing Officer (AO), apparently quite correctly in the light of the subsequent ruling of the Gujarat High Court, was that such carry forward of the depreciation for the past years was not limited by the pre-existing Section 32(2) of the Act, which ceased to be on the statute book with effect from the date it was amended, i.e. 01.04.2002. 6. In these circumstances, in the absence of any t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
