Brought In Section 32(2) By The Finance Act 1996 As Otiose?” v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2013) 354 Itr 244
High Court
02 Dec 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Brought In Section 32(2) By The Finance Act 1996 As Otiose?” v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2013) 354 Itr 244
Date of order
02 Dec 2019
Assessment year(s)
2000-01, 2009-10, 2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Brought In Section 32(2) By The Finance Act 1996 As Otiose?” v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2013) 354 Itr 244, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 2009-10? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal by allowing such set off of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y.
Decision: The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly, summarily, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 728 of 2019
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 VersusM/S GUJARAT LEASE FINANCE LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIand
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 02/12/2019
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1.By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Revenue has challenged the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’, Ahmedabad in ITA No.52/Ahd/2017 by proposing the following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law:
“[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 to set off in A.Y. 2009-10?
[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal by allowing such set off of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 in A.Y. 2009-10 has rendered the amendment
brought in section 32(2) by the Finance Act 1996 as otiose?”
2.The assessment year is 2009-10 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2008-09. It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 354 ITR 244
(Guj).
3.Under the circumstances, for the reasons set out in the decision of this court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), no question of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly, summarily, dismissed.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue