9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant provision, the entirety of Section 139 would have been mentioned in the relevant expression in Section 80AC which would have included within its sweep the extended period under sub-section (4) thereof. But in such provision referring only to sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, the reference to the other provisions of Section 139 must be understood to have been excluded. See judgment of Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 579 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - ITAT No. 385 of 2016 GA No. 3162 of 2016 GA No. 690 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - Sanjib Banerjee And Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Protyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. A. K. Dey, Adv For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectors or share-holders of the joint venture company were not resident in India. As a result, the annual accounts for the joint venture company could not be completed within the stipulated time and an application was made before the relevant Registrar of Companies for extension of the time to complete the finalisation of the accounts and the acceptance thereof at a deferred annual general meeting. Pursuant to the Registrar s orders, the accounts were finalised in November of the relevant year and the annual general meeting was also held. In terms of Section 139(4) of the Act, the returns were filed at a belated stage but upon complying with the requirements of such provision. The appellant claims that once the returns are filed and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the loss observing that it was a loss case and the returns had been filed after the statutory date, as a consequence whereof the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the carry forward of the loss in the subsequent assessments. The Supreme Court found that the statute provided for an extended period within which returns could be filed. Since there was no specific embargo in the statute for carrying forward loss upon valid returns being filed, though beyond the prescribed date, the Court held that the filing of the returns would be the determining factor. The ratio is utterly inapplicable when the statute confers a benefit and imposes a condition for the enjoyment of the benefit. The dictum would not be applicable, particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
