9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as sub-section (2A) of section 22 is concerned, his client would not be entitled to the benefit of carry forward of the business loss for the year - - - - - Dated:- 5-2-1968 - Judge(s) : VEERASWAMI., RAMAPRASADA RAO. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by VEERASWAMI J.- The question in this petition relates to the propriety of the rejection of the return filed by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Way (P.) Ltd. , the judgment in which is reported as an Appendix to Sri Hari Mills Ltd. v. First Income-tax Officer, held that carrying forward an unabsorbed depreciation did not fall under section 24(2) and did not, therefore, depend upon compliance with section 22(2A). The view also was expressed that the return in that case fell squarely within section 22(3). Sri Hari Mills Ltd. v. First Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re unable to accept this view. Where an assessee claims to carry over business loss and at the same time carry over unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, they have all to be included in one return, though part of the claim may fall under section 22(2A) and the other part under section 22(2). The Act in such a case does not require two separate returns. In our opinion, therefore, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit. The only effect on the assessee of not filing a return which falls within that sub-section is that he will not be entitled to the benefit of the carry forward of the loss, in this case the petitioner's business loss. Sub-section (2A) has no further effect and it will not affect the validity of the return in respect of other matters not falling within the purview of that sub-section. Viewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
