High Court of Punjab and Haryana · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak v. United Pharma International Ltd.
ITA 300/2007 ·
Depreciation appeal dismissed following United Pharma precedent
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s direction allowing Rs.16,42,401 depreciation associated with capitalised foreign-exchange fluctuation of Rs.51,74,222 for assessment year 1994–95. Its proposed question asserted that section 43A did not apply to the facts.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court held the similar issue already decided for the assessee in CIT v. United Pharma Industries Ltd., ITA 20/2001, decided 24 July 2007. This short order applies that precedent without reproducing its detailed reasoning.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
4. OUTCOME
The Tribunal’s depreciation relief survived this appeal. The Court’s short order does not provide a fresh calculation or a detailed independent analysis of section 43A.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
The proposed question is Revenue’s contention
The assertion that section 43A was inapplicable appears within the question advanced by Revenue. It is not a finding that the Court accepted. The actual disposition follows an earlier decision favourable to the assessee, so the question’s premise must not be reported as the holding.
Source: PDF p.1
Keep the two amounts and the historical year separate
Rs.51,74,222 describes the capitalised fluctuation while Rs.16,42,401 is the challenged depreciation. Neither is a stated cash refund. The case concerns assessment year 1994–95; the short text does not establish how later versions of the provision apply.
Source: PDF p.1
Precedent application is narrower than reconstructing the precedent
The Court names ITA 20/2001 and its date but does not reproduce its factual or statutory analysis. This note records that reliance without inventing imported-asset details, payment events or accounting methods. The lead judgment would be required for a fuller account of the reasoning.
Source: PDF p.1
Source and verification
Complete source PDF reviewed: 2 physical pages.
Original PDF: 2 pages · SHA-256: 3990c7c0722a1197abf8cc250d694ff99a0305da47ed216fe23632456ae7bc58
All 2 original pages read and visually inspected; source hash verified. AI-assisted substantive correction.
Sections and disposition are recorded only to the extent stated in this source order.
Subsequent treatment not independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. The Expert Comments section is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.