9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Assessment Year 1999-2000 and Assessment Year 2000-2001 against the profits of Assessment Year 2009- 2010 without appreciating that as per the provisions of Section 32(2) as they stood prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, such unabsorbed depreciation was eligible for carry forward and set-off against business profits only for a further period of eight years ?" 3. By order dated 2nd August, 2018, this Appeal alongwith other Appeals raising this very issue have been kept today for final disposal. This, as some of the Appeals are already admitted on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, appeals filed by the Revenue on identical question of law were not entertained by following the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra). Attention is invited to The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III V/s. M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1037 of 2014) dismissed on 6th December, 2016. Further, the respondents point out the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-3 V/s. M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 134 of 2016, 135 of 2016, 136 of 2016, 140 of 2016, 141 of 2016 and 148 of 2016) this Court on 13th June, 2018 dismissed the above Revenue's Appeal. This, we find is on the basis that the Counsel for the Revenue very fairly stated that the issue stands concluded against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unilever (supra). Thus, this submission of Mr. Pinto is without any merits. 8. Mr. Pinto, next submits that the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever (supra) is not correct. However, no submissions in support thereof are made . Therefore, no reason has been shown to us at the final hearing, why the decision is Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) is not to be followed. Merely filing of an SLP from the order of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance. The Revenue is entitled to challenge the view taken by us following our decision in Hindustan Unilever (supra) by challenging this decision in the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
