Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Baroda Crystal Glass Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 42 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BARODA CRYSTAL GLASS LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 42 of 1994 MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 07/11/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) �The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the Commissioner for assessment year 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years was allowable against the current year's income which is only from other sources even if there is no business income?" 2.�We have heard Mr Akil Kureshi, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the assessee. Mr Kureshi fairly submitted that the question is concluded by decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Deepak Textiles Industries Ltd., 210 ITR 1029 and in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd., 216 ITR 607. 3.�In light of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years was allowable against the income of the current year even if there is no business income. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4.�The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. �����(M.S. Shah, J.) �����(D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/-