9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, against the assessee, an individual, by name Seth Khushal Chand Daga. The assessee was a partner in a firm, Messrs. R. B. Bansilal Abirchand of Nagpur. In the year of account ending Diwali, 1941, he received his share of assets and property from this firm and started business of his own. In the same year, his sources of income were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s share in the unregistered firm, Rs. 1,82,773 and Rs. 1,39,922 respectively, against which were set off his losses in his individual business, Rs. 1,18,913 and Rs. 60,589 respectively. The contention of the assessee was that the profits which he had derived from the unregistered firm could not be set off against the loss in his individual business, as the profits of the unregistered firm had born ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee from his personal business (including his share of loss from another firm) cannot be set off under section 24(1) against his taxed share income from an unregistered firm ? " These questions were answered by the High Court against the Commissioner, who has now appealed, with special leave. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under section 24 ; but inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer had not notified the loss computed by him by order in writing, an appeal could not be taken on that point. In our opinion, the assessee was, therefore, entitled to have the loss re-determined in a subsequent year. Learned counsel for the Commissioner stated that the Department was not very anxious for the decision, because this particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
