9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 245 of 1976. The following two questions of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. Initially, the Tribunal had referred the following question to the court for its opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,200, which was allowed as loss on shares in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , are as follows : In the assessment year 1951-52, the assessee, who was assessed as an individual, was allowed a sum of Rs. 57,200 as business loss caused by the fall in the market price of shares of Hukumchand Mills Limited held in stock at the close of the relevant accounting year. In the assessment year 1965-66, the status of the assessee was Hindu undivided family. In the previous year corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refused to refer the question in the form in which it was formulated by the assessee on the ground that the question of status of the assessee was never argued before the Tribunal. The assessee thereupon made an application before this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, praying that the Tribunal be directed to send a supplementary statement of the case and refer the question in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit must be the same assessee who had got advantage of the allowance or deduction earlier. In CIT v. Hukumchand Mohanlal [1967] 64 ITR 341, it was held by this court that the assessee made liable under section 41(1) of the Act must be the same assessee to whom an allowance had been granted earlier. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hukumchand Mohanlal [1971] 82 ITR 624. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
