9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of Rs. 64,131 for that year. But it claimed Rs. 56,280 as depreciation allowance and Rs. 1,34,317 as development rebate so that its return showed a loss. The first respondent by an order of his dated November 18, 1961, considered the return as null and void on the view that it was not filed within the assessment year and that in view of the provisions of section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which according to him applied to the case, the loss returned by the return of the petitioner would have to be ignored and not carried forward. The petition is to quash the order. There is a further prayer that this court should direct the first respondent to set off the loss of prior years in the assessment year 1957-58. In support of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation allowable except that proviso (b) to clause (iii) directs that where such allowance is to be granted, effect shall first be given to sub-section (2). In other words, as we already indicated, allowance for depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) will follow and not precede the set-off permissible under section 24(2). The view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Speed-a-way Private Limited receives support from Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines. The Supreme Court there observed : "But it is wrong to assume that section 24(2) also deals with the carrying-forward of depreciation. This carry forward having been provided in section 10(2)(vi) and in a different manner, section 24(2) only deals with losses other than losses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which does not accept the observations in Udaya Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, justifies the view. It was held there that a return showing income below the taxable limit submitted voluntarily in answer to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act was a good return, which could not be treated as a mere waste paper. This is such a case and the return was before the assessment was made and within four years of the assessment year: see Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Raman Chettiar. Mr. Balasubrahmanyan attempted to cover a wider ground, which as we think, is anticipatory. How the first respondent would hereafter deal with the return is not and cannot be the subject-matter of this petition for certiorari. The first r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
