9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court on 26.03.2009, arising from the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 18.07.2008, for Assessment Year 2001-2002. ''1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Unabsorbed Depreciation is not eligible to be carried forward under Section 32 (2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the alternative plea and holding that the Unabsorbed Depreciation cannot be set off against the Short Term Capital Gain under Section 50 read with Section 72 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ? 2. The question about carry forward of 'Unabsorbed Depreciation' was dealt with by the learned Tribunal and claim was disallowed with the following observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowance is clearly applicable to a case falling in the assessment year 2001-02. The consequent amendment brought in by the Finance Act,2001 does not change the position. This is because the Act has made it very clear that the amendment could be effective with effect from 1.4.2002; that is for the assessment year 2002-03 onwards. When the amending statute declares that the amended law is applicable with effect from a particular assessment year onwards, no rule for retrospectively can be applied thereto. As the words of statute were clear, there is no need of any exertion of interpretation. Therefore, in the light of the decisions cited by the ld. Senior D.R., we find that the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation to the short term capital gains computed under a specific head ''capital gains''. 24. In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) where the Court has held that Assessing Officer cannot disturb the book profit as certified under the Companies Act and where the issue was whether the UTI dividends could be treated as part of business income. But the crucial difference in that case considered by the Supreme Court is that the dividend income was considered as income of the eligible business and not the income computed as such under the head ''profits and gains of business or profession''. Therefore, no analog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 1998-99)*, and thereafter if there still is any unabsorbed depreciation the same can be set off only against the business income for a period of eight (08) assessment years. 3. The special leave petition is disposed of in the above terms. * As corrected by the order of the Supreme Court dated 16-12-2015.'' 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that since the matter of calculation of 'Unabsorbed Depreciation' in which it was first computed and the limitation of eight years prior to amendment has not been properly computed in the present case, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Assessing Authority for undertaking such computational exercise once agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
