9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestment allowance?" - our answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - our answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - our answer to question No. (3) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - our answer to question No. (4) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - - - - - Dated:- 5-7-2002 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., K. A. PUJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M.S. SHAH J.- The assessee was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elscope (P.) Ltd. On March 1, 1977, the assessee had sold its undertaking to Elscope (P.) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income-tax (Appeals) upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in respect of unabsorbed depreciation, development rebate and investment allowance and interest charged under section 215 of the Act. In its order under reference, following its order in the case of Sarabhai Chemicals (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of deletion of the house property income and interest charged under section 215 of the Act. Further, following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 773, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years. However, in respect of unabsorbed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be the same business as was carried on in the preceding previous year. In the absence of any words to that effect, no such requirement ought to be read into the said sub-section. Contrasting the provisions of section 32(2) with the provisions of section 72(1), the courts have further held that in the following year, the assessee need not carry on any business or profession for availing of the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 32. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we have no doubt in holding that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, our answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability has been incurred by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid principle, our answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As far as question No. (3) is concerned, our attention is invited to the decision of this court in CIT v. Sarabhai Chemicals P. Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 625 wherein following the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 and the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Mormasji Mancharji Vaid [2001] 250 ITR 542 it is held that the property cannot be owned by two persons, each one having independent and exclusive right over it. For the purposes of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, corresponding to section 9 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
