Question before the High Court was \u201cWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Assessment Year 1999-2000 and Assessment Year 2000-2001 against the profits of Assessment Year 2009- 2010 without appreciating that as per the provisions of Section 32(2) as they stood prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, such unabsorbed depreciation was eligible for carry forward and set-off against business profits only for a further period of eight years ?\u201d<\/p>\n
Department \u00a0relied \u00a0upon the orders \u00a0in the case of CIT\u00a0 v. \u00a0Milton Pvt Ltd \u00a0(ITA No.2301 of 2013) and CIT v. Confidence Petroleum India Ltd. (ITA \u00a0No. 582 of 2014), both of which were admitted on similar questions of law on 24th February, 2017 and 3rd April, 2017 respectively accordingly the matter may be referred to larger Bench .<\/p>\n
Honourable Court held that the issue referred above is concluded by the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (2017 ) 394 ITR 73 (Bom) (HC), placing reliance upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in \u00a0Dy. CIT\u00a0v. General Motors India P. Ltd (2013) \u00a0354 ITR 244 (Guj) (HC )and the CBDT Circular No.14 of 2001 \u00a0dt. 22-11- 2001. \u00a0Court also observed that the\u00a0 revenue was not able to point out any reason as to why the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (I) Ltd. (supra) should not be followed. In the above facts, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Court also observed \u00a0appeals filed by the Revenue on identical question of law were not entertained by following the decisions , Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) CIT v. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 1037 of 2016 dt.6-12.2016) CIT v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd ( ITA \u00a0No. 134 of 2016, 135 of 2016, 136 of 2016, 140 of 2016, 141 of 2016 and 148 of 2016) on\u00a0on 13th June, 2018 .PCIT\u00a0 v.. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd , ITA No \u00a01042 of 2015 dt. \u00a020 -02-2018 . Court also \u00a0held that merely filing of an SLP from the order of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and\/or in abeyance. The Revenue is entitled to challenge the view taken by us following our decision in Hindustan Unilever (supra) by challenging this decision in the Apex Court. However, in the present facts, at this stage, there can be no question of our not following the order in Hindustan Unilever (supra). It may be pointed out that the Delhi High Court in Motor and General Fine Ltd. v. ITO (2017 ) 393 ITR 60 ( Delhi )(HC has also adopted the view of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (supra). Unabsorbed depreciation is allowed \u00a0to be set off .\u00a0Accordingly the appeal of revenue was dismissed .( ITXA\u00ad No 293 of 2016\u00a0 dt. 03.08.2018)<\/p>\n