High Court Of Calcutta
CIT vs. Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd.
Sections 72, 139(3), 80-J
Dipak Kumar Sen & Monjula Bose, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 257 of 1982
17th June, 1986
Counsel Appeared
C. Moitra & S.K. Mukherji, for the Revenue
DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.:
On an application of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court: ” (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of s. 139(9) of the IT Act, 1961, limiting the time within which loss should be declared, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss even though the loss return was not filed within the time prescribed under s. 139(3) as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961, was admissible in law as such for the entire year and should not be calculated proportionately with reference to the period for which the undertaking was in operation during the year ? “
The controversy raised in the first question is covered by a decision of this Court in Presidency Medical Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 838. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
The controversy in question No. (2) is also covered by a decision of this Court in CIT vs. Oyster Packagers (P) Ltd. (1986) 53CTR (Cal) 427:(1985) 152 ITR 471(Cal). Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and also in favour of the assessee.
There will be no order as to costs.
MONJULA BOSE, J.:
I agree.
[Citation : 169 ITR 466]
