SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 258

A.N.GROVER, J.C.SHAH, K.S.HEGDE
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Kulu Vallety Transport Company Private LTD. – Respondent


Judgment

SHAH, J.- The Kulu Vallye Transport Co. (P.) Ltd.- hereinafter called the Company - did not file returns of income in respect of the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 within the period specified in the general notice under Section 22 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In January 1956, the Company filed voluntary returns disclosing loss of income in the course of its business amounting to Rs. 1,151,520 and Rs. 48,977, respectively, for the two years in question. The Income-tax Officer refused to determine the loss observing:

"This is a loss case and the return has been filed after the statutory time. The Company is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of carry-forward of loss in the subsequent assessments. The case is, therefore, filed."

2. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, appeals were preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That officer rejected the Company s request for extension for filing the returns, and dismissed the appeals, observing:

"The return made under Sec. 22 (2A) can only be taken to be a return under sub-section (1) of Section 22 for the purpose of this Act, if it is made within the statutory time prescribed in sub-section (2A) of the





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top