9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to set off the deficiency carried forward under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the earlier assessment years to the extent of Rs. 72,735 in the computation of its income for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deficiency " had to be carried forward as required in terms of section 80J(3). In respect of the new industrial undertaking, development rebate was claimed and allowed for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71 aggregating to Rs. 1,14,297. This sum, for want of sufficient profit to be set off, was carried forward. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1974-75 relevant to the previo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no other heads of income. The assessee then claimed the benefit of section 80J in relation to its profit from the new industrial undertaking, that is, Rs. 72,735. This claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that in setting off during the relevant year the unabsorbed development rebate for the years 1968-69 to 1970-71 against the profit from the new industrial undertaking, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustrial undertaking and the balance against other income. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer had rightly found that there was no profit from the new industrial undertaking which could be adjusted against the claim under section 80J. In the circumstances, the finding to the contrary by the appellate authorities was, in our view, wrong in law. See the observations of the Supreme Court in CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
