Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. M/S. Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co Ltd

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO. 634 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6..Appellant Versus M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co Ltd..Respondent ................... Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for the Appellant Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for the Appellant Ms. Vasanti Patel for the RespondentMs. Vasanti Patel for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018. P.C.: 1.This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Act), challenges the order dated 30.6.2015 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“the Tribunal”for short). This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2.Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the Revenue,urges the following re-framed question of law for ourconsideration. “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow theset off of brought forward depreciation losses ofamalgamating company for the assessment years 1996-97and 1997-98 i.e for the period prior to amendment in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, with effect from April 1,2002?”and in law, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow theset off of brought forward depreciation losses ofamalgamating company for the assessment years 1996-97and 1997-98 i.e for the period prior to amendment in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, with effect from April 1,2002?” 3.Mr. Malhotra very fairly states that the issue arising herein now stands concluded against the Revenue and infavour of the respondent assessee by the decision of thisCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Hindustan Unilever Ltd reported in [2017] 394 ITR 73(Bom). It is further brought to our notice that the Revenue's Special Leave Petition from the order of this Court in the caseof Hindustan Unilever Ltd (supra) has also been dismissed bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in [2018] 99taxmann.com 135 (SC). 4.In view of above, the proposed question does not giverise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.Appeal dismissed.rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.Appeal dismissed. [ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]