9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on an amount calculated in terms of the aforesaid provisions, with reference to the gross capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740 ? " The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, derived capital gains in sum of Rs. 1,02,740 during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. It claimed deductions thereon under and as provided by section 80T of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, adopted a different method. He found that, during the said previous year, the assessee had suffered a business loss of Rs. 41,892. He set off the said loss against the capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740 and applied, the deductions provided in section 80T to the balance figure. The assessee's appeal was allowed by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being, hereinafter, referred to as long-term capital gains ), there shall be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee a deduction from such income of an amount equal to ". The language of section 80T is plain and unambiguous. It says, "(i) where the gross total income of an assessee (not being a company), (ii) includes any income chargeable under the head 'Capital gains' in the nature of long-term capital gains, (iii) there shall be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such income of an amount equal to Evidently, the deductions provided for by the said provision had to be made from out of the capital gains. In this case, the capital gain was Rs. 1,02,740. It is on the said sum that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion referred against the Revenue, applied the principle of Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC) while construing the words "such income". Inasmuch as the said decision has been overruled by this court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120, it is argued, the very basis of the High Court's judgment gets knocked out. In our opinion, the said argument is beside the point. The character of deduction provided by section 80M which was the provision considered in the said two decisions of this court is different from the character of deduction provided by section 80T. Because the same words occur in both the sections, it does not necessarily follow that they must carry the same meaning. The Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
