Court In Cit Cit v. In The Above View, The Question As Formulated Does Not Give Riseto Any Substantial Question Of Law. Thus, Not Entertained

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Ceat Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. Parcy Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for therespondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 27[th] NOVEMBER, 2018. 1.This appeal under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (theAct) challenges the order dated 31[st] July, 2015 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates toAssessment Year 2006-07. 2.The Revenue has urged the following substantial question of lawfor our consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 2001-02 wasallowable to be carried forward and adjusted after the lapse ofeight assessment years in view of section 32(2) as amended bythe Finance Act, 2001? 3.Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue veryfairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against theRevenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in CIT cit Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 73. Itis further pointed out that being aggrieved by the order of this Court inthe case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra), the Revenue had filed anSLP to the Supreme Court and the same also stands dismissed reportedas CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 2018 (99) Taxmann.com 135. 4.In the above view, the question as formulated does not give riseto any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5.The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)