The High Court of Bombay dismissed two income tax appeals. The court held that the framed legal question on the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation did not raise a substantial question of law given previous orders by this court involving the same respondent.
Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 21&4-itxa-1621&1646.14.doc
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1621 OF 2014 WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1646 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central- III
..Appellant
Versus M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ..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.
DATE : 6th MARCH, 2017
P.C.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the unabsorbed depreciation available to the
2 21&4-itxa-1621&1646.14.doc
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?”
revenue very fairly states that the issue arising in the present appeal stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondentassessee by the order of this Court dated 26th 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 6th December, 2016 and 1st 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.
Wadhwa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proposed question of law gives rise to a substantial question warranting adjudication by the Supreme Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Commissioner of Income Tax Central- III
M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
M. S. Sanklecha
A. K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
