9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1955, by an order of this court in 1957, Consequent upon this merger the name of Buland Sugar Company was changed into Raza Buland Sugar Company. The assessee in the present references is Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd. but references in fact relate to the assessments of Buland Sugar Company. The two sugar companies had formed a partnership firm known as the Agricultural Company. The Agricultural Company suffered a loss. It was assessed as unregistered firm for the assessment years in question. The Buland Sugar Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") claimed to set off its share of loss in the Agricultural Company against its own profits of the relevant year. This claim was disallowed by the Tribunal on the basis of a dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but it did not give any reason in support of the certificate and hence the Supreme Court did not admit the appeals on the basis of the certificate. The assessee then moved special leave petitions which were rejected with the following observation: "These appeals are brought on the strength of a certificate issued by the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court has not given any reasons in support of the certificate issued. Hence, the appeals in question are not maintainable. Realising that difficulty the assessee has moved the special leave petitions above mentioned. We have heard the assessee's counsel at length on the special leave petitions. We do not think that these are fit cases to be heard by this court. In the result the appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ink that the view expressed by the Bombay High Court, the Gujarat High Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Delhi High Court appears to be a better view. The reason is very simple. Section 24(1) of the Act provides for the set off of loss in computing the aggregate income and reads: "Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year." This provision clearly comes into play when an assessee wants to set off loss against any other head of income enumerated in section 6. It has no application where loss is sought to be set off against inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We, however, make no order as to costs. A. BANERJI J.--I agree with the reasons and the conclusion indicated in the judgment of brother, Gulati J. that the question referred to the Full Bench must be answered in the negative. However, in my opinion, it is not necessary to express any opinion as to which of the two views taken by the different High Courts is to be preferred. In fact there was no argument at the Bar on the merits of the two differing views. SATISH CHANDRA J.--I agree with brother, Banerji J. BY THE COURT The question referred to this court is answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner would be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
