The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral- Iii v. M/S. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd
High Court
06 Mar 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral- Iii v. M/S. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
06 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral- Iii v. M/S. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appellant-revenue has urged the following identical question of law for our consideration in the appeals as under:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on A.Y.
Decision: 5.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1621 OF 2014WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1646 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income TaxCentral- III
Versus
M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
...........
Mr. A. R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the Appellant.Mr. Sameer Dalal i/b. Sudhakar Lakhani for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
P.C.
DATE : 6[th] MARCH, 2017
1.These Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenge the common order dated 9[th] October, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned common order relates to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Thus the two appeals.
2. The appellant-revenue has urged the following identical question of
law for our consideration in the appeals as under:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the unabsorbed depreciation available to the
assessee as on A.Y. 2002-03 be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.1) Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) as it stood before the said amendment?”
3.Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue very fairly states that the issue arising in the present appeal stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the order of this Court dated 26[th] July, 2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.1873 of 2013 CIT v/s. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and by the orders of this Court dated 6[th] December, 2016 and 1[st] February, 2017 in Income Tax Appeal Nos.1037 of 2014 and 1375 of 2014 in respect of the same respondent-assessee raising an identical issue has not been entertained.
4.In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
5.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(M. S. SANKLECHA, 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.