9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Claim for set off of loss from house property against income under other heads for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the assessee to set off the loss relating to house property against income under other heads for the mentioned assessment years. The assessee claimed to have paid interest resulting in a loss from the house property, which they sought to set off against business income. The assessing authority disallowed the claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted it. The Tribunal also upheld the claim, leading to reference applications by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal found a similar question referred to the High Court previously, leading to the present reference. The key contention was whether the assessee was entitled to set off the loss from house property against income under other heads for the assessment years. The relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act were analyzed, including Sections 22, 23, 24, and 71. Section 23 specifically mentioned "in no case a loss," but Section 24 allowed deductions for interest payable on borrowed capital for property acquisition. Section 71 permitted setting off loss from one head against income from another, supporting the assessee's claim. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that Section 23 precluded any loss, emphasizing the harmonious interpretation of provisions. The Court illustrated a scenario where interest on borrowed capital for property construction could lead to a loss without immediate income, still allowing deduction under Section 24 and set off under Section 71. Referring to past judgments, the Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the provisions and the removal of ambiguous language to clarify deductions for such situations. The judgment concluded that the assessee's claim for set off was rightly upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing the legislative intent and the provisions allowing for such deductions and set offs. The Court answered the Tribunal's question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee without any order as to costs.
|
