2001 PLP 2453 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus CONCORD INDUSTRIES LTD
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2453 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 800 |
| Bench Members | S.C. Agrawal and G. T. Nanavati, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus CONCORD INDUSTRIES LTD |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2453 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2453 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 800 bench comprising: S.C. Agrawal and G. T. Nanavati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2453 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus CONCORD INDUSTRIES LTD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Dewan and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated January 24, 1979, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 182 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑Loss‑‑‑Carry forward and set‑off‑‑‑Company in which substantial change in shareholding takes place‑‑‑Provision prohibiting carry forward in such company‑‑‑Whether applies to carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.79. From these decision of the Madras High Court (see (1979) 119 ITR 458) holding that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prohibiting the carry forward of losses of certain companies in which a substantial change in shareholding takes place, would not apply to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, an appeal was preferred by the Department before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal on the ground that one of the conditions for the applicability of section 79 was that there should be a change in the shareholding of the company and the Department was not able to show that a finding had been recorded by any authority regarding the change of shareholding in the company. CIT v. Concord Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 458 affirmed on different grounds.
Judgment & Decree
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated January 24, 1979, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 182 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑Loss‑‑‑Carry forward and set‑off‑‑‑Company in which substantial change in shareholding takes place‑‑‑Provision prohibiting carry forward in such company‑‑‑Whether applies to carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.79. From these decision of the Madras High Court (see (1979) 119 ITR 458) holding that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prohibiting the carry forward of losses of certain companies in which a substantial change in shareholding takes place, would not apply to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, an appeal was preferred by the Department before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal on the ground that one of the conditions for the applicability of section 79 was that there should be a change in the shareholding of the company and the Department was not able to show that a finding had been recorded by any authority regarding the change of shareholding in the company. CIT v. Concord Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 458 affirmed on different grounds. Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Dewan and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. This appeal, by certificate granted by the Madras High Court under section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of the reference made by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal in which the following question was answered by the High Court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue (see (1979) 119 ITR 458, 459): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal that the provisions of section 79 would not apply to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate?" We have heard Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, in support of the appeal. One of the conditions for the applicability of section 79 is that there should be a change in the shares holding of the company. Shri Ranbir Chandra has not been able to show that a finding has been recorded by any authority regarding the change of share holding of the company for the applicability of section
79. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1005/FC Appeal dismissed.