| |
The Tax PublishersS.L.P. (C) No. 582 of 2019
2019 TaxPub(DT) 1798 (SC) : (2019) 261 TAXMAN 0558INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 261 Section 32(2)
Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [ITA No. 141 of 2016, dt. 13-6-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5225 (Bom-HC), whereby the High Court following CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 73 (Bom) held in favour of assessee on the question whether Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 to assessment year 2001-02 was allowable to be carried forward and adjusted after the lapse of 8 assessment years in view of section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Depreciation - Unabsorbed depreciation--Carry forward and set off after eight years--Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02--Effect of amendment
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. [ITA No. 141 of 2016, dt. 13-6-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5225 (Bom-HC), whereby the High Court following CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 73 (Bom) held in favour of assessee on the question whether Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 to assessment year 2001-02 was allowable to be carried forward and adjusted after the lapse of 8 assessment years in view of section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|