| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 564 1970 SLD 564 (1970) 77 ITR 518 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 859 AND 860 OF 1968, APRIL 30, 1970
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ
Jagdish Swarup and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. B. Sen, S.K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar for the
Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 859 AND 860 OF 1968, APRIL 30, 1970
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ
Jagdish Swarup and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. B. Sen, S.K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar for the
Respondent
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 72, read with section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 24(2) read with section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Losses - Carry forward and set off of business losses - Assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 - Whether a return whether it is a return of income, profits or gains or of loss must be considered as having been made within the time prescribed if it is made within time specified in section 22(3) of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether where return disclosing loss was filed voluntarily beyond time fixed in general notice under section 22(1) of 1922 Act, but before completion of assessment it must be considered as having been filed within time prescribed under section 22(3) of 1922 Act and, therefore, loss returned by assessee had to be determined and carried forward - Held, yes Interpretation of statutes: Rule of beneficial interpretation. FACTS The assessee-company did not file returns of income for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 within the period specified in the general notice under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In January, 1956, the company filed voluntary returns disclosing loss of income in the course of its business. No notice had been served under section 22(2). The Income-tax Officer held that since the returns had been filed after the statutory period the company was not entitled to carry forward the losses under section 24(2) for both the years in the subsequent assessments. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner two main points were urged. The first was that the delay in the submission of the returns should have been condoned and, secondly, the returns should have been treated as having been made under section 22(3) in which case also they would be valid return sunder section 22(2A). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not find any sufficient or reasonable cause for condoning the delay. On the second point he decided against the company. The Tribunal agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on the main point held that the company was not entitled to the benefit of carrying forward the losses as it had not filed the returns in accordance with section…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492