Mr. Malhotra, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Revenuevery Fairly States That The Issue Raised Herein Stands Concludedagainst The Revenue And In Favour Of The v. In The Above View, The Question As Formulated Does Not Give

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.818 OF 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6v/s.M/s. CEAT Ltd. .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Mr. N.A. Kazi for the Appellant.Mr.Atul Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018. P.C.:- 1. This appeal under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 31[st] July, 2015 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugnedorder relates to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has urged the following substantial question oflaw for our consideration : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is justified inholding that the unabsorbed depreciationpertaining to A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 2001-02 wasallowable to be carried forward and adjusted 236 itxa 818-16-o-s after the lapse of eight assessment years inview of section 32(2) as amended by theFinance Act, 2001?” 3. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenuevery fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concludedagainst the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee bythe decision of this Court in CIT cit Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.(2017) 394 ITR 73. It is further pointed out that being aggrievedby the order of this Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd.(supra), the Revenue had filed an SLP to the Supreme Court andthe same also stands dismissed reported as CIT Vs. HindustanUnilever Ltd. 2018 (99) Taxmann.com 135. 4. In the above view, the question as formulated does not give rise to 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.)