At The Outset, Shri Shankar, Submits That Both The Issues Involved In This Appeal Are Covered By The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Principal Commiss v. Petrofils Co-Operative Limited[2] Holding The Questions Of Law In Assessee’s Favour

Digitallysigned byYASHODHANLocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.66 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2) BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2) BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S M M RUBBER COMPANY LTD. EMPIRE INFANTRY 3 FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 PAN: AAACM 2611E. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND /OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT; SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04 JUNE, 2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.2472/BANG/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal by the Revenue directed against the order dated June 4, 2019 in ITA No.2472/Bang/2017 passed by the ITAT[1], "A" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law as well on facts in holding that unabsorbed depreciation is covered by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off against profit and gains of subsequent year? case, the Tribunal is justified in law as well on facts in holding that unabsorbed depreciation is covered by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off against profit and gains of subsequent year? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the amendments to the Finance Act, amended as on 1.4.1997, wherein it was mentioned that the depreciation ought to be allowed upto 8 assessment years only? the Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the amendments to the Finance Act, amended as on 1.4.1997, wherein it was mentioned that the depreciation ought to be allowed upto 8 assessment years only? 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench 2. Heard Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri A. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri Shankar, submits that both the issues involved in this appeal are covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA 1 Vs. PETROFILS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED[2] holding the questions of law in assessee’s favour. 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri Sanmathi, in his usual fairness. 5. In view of the above, the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed; 2 (2021) 431 ITR 501 (ii) The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53