AIT-News-35

the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78 Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85 Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7 Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6 Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30 Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31 Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82 Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

No set off if business not carried out in assessment year

AIT News Network

CHENNAI. Special bench of ITAT AIT-2006-198-ITAT has ruled that if the business from which the depreciation claim arose is not carried out in any of the assessment years, the assessee would not be entitled to the set off.

The Special Bench was constituted for considering the following question :

“In view of the provisions of section 32(2)(iii) whether it is possible to set off the brought forward depreciation loss against capital gains?”

T H E R U L I N G:

The position prior to 1.4.1997 as contained in sections 32, 70, 71 72 of the Act have all been incorporated into section 32(2) of the Act itself with effect from 1.4.1997. The law maker thus having incorporated the provisions of sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Act in section 32 of the Act and has made this section a comprehensive in itself.
- The facts of the case as it exist are that the claim of depreciation for set off relates to assessment year 1997-98 and the business to which it was related to is still continuing. The assessment year involved is 1999-2000. it is thus clear that the present case of the assessee do not fall into section 32(2)(i) which permits setting off of unabsorbed depreciation against profits and gains of any business of the same assessment year. Sec. 32(2)(ii) is also not attracted in the case of the assessee because of the same reason, viz. the unabsorbed depreciation is not of the same assessment year as 1999-2000 but is of 19997-98. It is only in the event of the depreciation remaining wholly unabsorbed for the assessment year 1999-2000, that the assessee could insist for adjustment or set off of such unabsorbed portion of the depreciation against income from any other head including capital gains. This being not the fact of the present case, the claim of the assessee that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be adjusted against capital gains is incorrect because this provision is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
- The facts of the present case, as they are, attract the provisions of sec32(2)(iii) of the Act. This is because the unabsorbed depreciation is for the assessment year 1997-98 and the assessment year before us is 1999-2000. The unabsorbed depreciation being two years older to the present assessment year all that the assessee would be entitled to is carry forward of the said unabsorbed depreciation to be set off against the profits and gains of the business to which this depreciation is related to is still carried on and will be allowed to be carried forward for set off for the following six assessment years because already two assessment years have lapsed.
  - In the present case before us the assessment year 1999-2000, and the depreciation allowance is for the assessment year 1997-98 which the assessee is claiming for set off against the income for the present assessment year.
    - It is absolutely clear that it is only section 32(2)(iii) of the Act, that is operational in the case of the assessee. On that basis all that the assessee could claim is for carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation for six more successive assessment years to be adjusted against the income from profits and gains from the same business from which the depreciation claim arose and the assessee would be entitled to carry this act for the next six assessment year in which the assessee is claiming the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation.
      - The clear condition that is laid down in this section is that in the assessment year in which the assessee is claiming the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation, assessee must be carrying on that business and the income from that business must exist.
        ( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-198-ITAT )