9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y.2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever - Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.661 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.669 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2019 - AKIL KURESHI S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. Mr. N.C.Mohanty, for Appellants. Mr. P. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Mr. Damodar I/by M/s. Kanga and Co., for Respondent. P.C.: 1. These Appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt open, while deciding the SLP in the case of General Motors ? 2. It is undisputed that the issue raised by the Revenue in the above Appeals is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of General Motors India P. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj). The said view has been constantly followed by this Court also. We may refer to an order dated 3rd August, 2018 in Income Tax Appeal No.293 of 2016 in which the Court made the following observations : 5. However, this Appeal alongwith other Appeals including the Appeal in Milton Private Ltd. (supra) and Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd. (supra), are kept today for final disposal. Therefore, the order at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the Revenue very fairly stated that the issue stands concluded against the appellant-Revenue by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra). Similarly, in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 V/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 1042 of 2015) identical questions raised by the Revenue was dismissed on 20th February, 2018. In this also, the Counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever (supra). 7. On the aforesaid decision being pointed out, Mr. Pinto, submits that all these appeals be referred to a larger Bench as there are two contradictory views of this Court, one in the case of Hindustan Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
