1998 PLP 2635 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PIGMENTS INDIA LTD.
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2635 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 230 I T R 520 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PIGMENTS INDIA LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2635 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2635 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 230 I T R 520 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2635 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PIGMENTS INDIA LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals from the judgments and orders, dated July 2, 1996, and July 24, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 18061 of 1995 and O. P.No.19206 of 1995 respectively)
Law applicable
Provisions relating to assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 would be different-- Question relating to carry forward of loss for two years is a question of law
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 139 & 256
[CIT v. Pigments India Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 797 and (1998) 230 ITR 518 reversed]. Held, that the provision of law to be applied is different for the two assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88:-Hence, whether the loss returns filed on October 10, 1986, and September 30, 1987, for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, respectively, could be taken into consideration for carry forward of loss were questions of law which had to be referred to the High Court. CIT v. Pigments India Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 797 and (1998) 230 ITR 518 reversed.
Judgment & Decree
By the judgment and order under appeal the High Court of Kerala rejected the reference made by the appellant under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions raised related to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. They read, thus, (see (1997) 228 ITR 797, 798 and (1998) 230 ITR 518 & 519): "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the relevant provisions, the assessee is entitled to carry forward any loss? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering the relevant provisions and the provision contained in subsection (10) of section 139 which retrospectively came into force from April 1, 1986, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to have the loss carried forward (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and since the Assessing Officer had extended time only up to September 30, 1986, and return filed on October 10, 1986, being one within the further extension of time applied for by the assessee (and on which no order was passed by the officer), the Tribunal is right in law in holding that, therefore, in view of the proviso to section 139(1) as it stood then the assessee is entitled to have loss carried forward (1) Whether, on the facts and in- the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the relevant provisions, the assessee is entitled to carry forward any loss? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the amendment to section 139(1) with effect from April 1, 1987 the Tribunal is right in law: (i) in taking into consideration the loss return filed on September 30,1987? (ii) in setting aside the order of the assessing authority and in giving a direction to the assessing authority to pass fresh order in accordance with the law. (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, does the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699, relied on by the Tribunal have application to the facts of the case?" By the order under appeal, the High Court rejected the reference. We are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the provision of law to be applied is different for the two assessment years and that the facts need to be considered in this light. We are not satisfied that this has been done. The questions raise issues of law and deserve to be referred to the High Court for fuller consideration. The appeal are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court for decision the aforestated questions of law. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1823/FC Appeal allowed.