9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereto can also have no application. Moreover, the second proviso to section 24(1) applies only where the assessee is an unregistered firm. That is not the case here. The assessees before us are, in one case, a Hindu undivided family and, in the other, an individual. It is obvious, therefore, that the second proviso to section 24(1) can have no application in these cases. High court correctly answered the the questions in favour of assessee. Appeals dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 16-1-1962 - Judge(s) : S. K. DAS., M. HIDAYATULLAH., J. C. SHAH JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. DAS J.--These two consolidated appeals raise a common question of law and have been heard together. The Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem, the same could be set oil against the income from other business under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but that principle was not applicable where the business carried on by the assessee was in partnership with others. The Tribunal expressed the view that in such A case section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act would not apply and the right to set off would arise only under section 24 and as none of the sub-sections of that section were attracted to the case, the assessee was not entitled to the relief claimed. In compliance with the requisition of the High Court of Madras under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal stated a case in respect of the following question of law which arose out of its order : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjusted to the capital account of the assessee and in the return of the total income filed for the assessment year 1947-48, the assessee claimed that the loss of Rs. 43,969. from the Rangoon firm should be allowed as a set-off. The Income-tax authorities negatived the claim of the assessee to set off either wholly or partly the loss of Rs. 43,969. On appeal to the Tribunal it held that the Rangoon firm was a different entity from the assessee and therefore he was not entitled to any set-off of the loss incurred by the Rangoon firm and dismissed the appeal. A case was then stated under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act to the High Court on the following question of law, namely : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or unregistered, a partner's share of the loss in the firm could be set off against the profits and gains made by him in his individual business. That principle applies in the present cases, even though after the amendment of the Income-tax Act in 1939, the position of a partner in an unregistered firm may stand on a different footing, a distinction which is not material for the present cases. The learned advocate for the appellant has not supported the case sought to be made out by the Revenue in the High Court. He has, however, relied on the second proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. It seems clear to us that that proviso has no application to the facts of the cases under our consideration. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
