9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 showing a loss of Rs. 2,94,978 The ITO computed the loss at a figure of Rs. 3,17,010 but opined that the same could not be carried forward for future set off since the return had not been filed within the extended period. 3. The CIT(A) upheld the view taken by the ITO. In doing so he first of all placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 198 : (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC). He also observed that there had been a change in the law vis-a-vis the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) that being a decision delivered in the context of the 1922 Act. A reference was made in this connection to the amendment brought ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984-85 provided that no loss which had not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under s. 139 would be carried forward for purposes of set off. According to him there was no reference to any sub-section of s. 139 and, therefore, even the loss determined pursuant to a return filed under s. 139(4) was required to be carried forward. That the position of law, however, changed with effect from asst. yr. 1985-86 due to the amendment of s. 80 and it was only a loss determined in pursuance to a return filed within the time allowed under s. 139 or within the extended time allowed by the ITO which was to be carried forward and set off. It was emphasised that this change was effective from 1st day of April, 1985 and did not have retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, a direction to carry forward the loss for purposes of set off in the subsequent assessment years. 7. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand strongly supported the orders of the tax authorities. The subsequent arguments advanced by him were in fact a reiteration of the reasons recorded by these authorities in rejecting the assessee's claim. He, however, highlighted the following: (i) That the amendment brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 had not been taken into account in the various decisions relied upon by the assessee's counsel. In this connection he referred specifically to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nagpur Steel Alloys (P) Ltd. and that of the Ahmedabad B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority for what had been decided. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath Om Prakash Others vs. State of Punjab Others (1985) 1 SCC 345 and that of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhrangadhra Municipality vs. Dhrangadhra Chemicals Works Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 77 (Guj). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Annu Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. for the submission that a similar reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan had not been accepted as being applicable to the facts of the case. 9. We have examined the rival submissions and have also perused the orders of the tax authorities. The various de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
