9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 11,834 being the deduction it was entitled to under s. 80J of the Act in respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 from the total income of the year under consideration. The ITO, however, rejected the assessee's claim in the following manner: "The company has claimed under s. 80J relief for the asst. yr. 1975-76 amounting to Rs. 11,884 without deducting borrowings in view of s. 80J. However, the assessment order shows that the assessee had neither made any claim nor the ITO has either quantified or allowed the carry forward of any of this claim. As such the assessee's claim in this year is not considered." 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim on the basis of the decision of the Honourable Allahabad High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains of subsequent years upto a limit of 7 years it permits the adjustment of carried forward deduction against the profits and gains of subsequent years in cases of shortfall or deficiency; there is no requirement in any part of s. 80J that the assessee must make a definite claim and the ITO must determine the amount of deduction before it can be carried forward in a case, where, admittedly the industrial undertaking had suffered a loss which had been accepted while making the assessment, since provision is also made for carry forward for 7 years, the deduction is permissible even in a case where the formality of making a claim has not been complied with by the assessee in the first or the relevant assessment year in which, admittedly los ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Hon'ble Madras High Court, there is no infirmity in his decision on this point. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties as well as persued the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court and I am of the opinion that the point involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. I may mention here that in the case of Sheetalaya, the Allahabad High Court had considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1978 CTR (SC) 1 : (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) and came to the conclusion that there is no applicability of the said decision on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case before it. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
