Carry forward of loss and full-year section 80J relief upheld under binding precedent, with both questions answered for the assessee.

The Calcutta HC applied binding precedent to answer both referred questions in favour of the assessee. It held that a loss could still be carried forward despite the loss return not having been filed within the time prescribed under section 139(3), read with section 139(9). It also held that relief under section 80J was admissible for the full year and was not to be restricted on a proportionate basis merely because the undertaking operated only for part of the period. Both statutory questions were decided for the assessee, leaving the Revenue unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss despite the loss return not having been filed within the time prescribed under section 139(3), in the light of section 139(9). (ii) Whether relief under section 80J was to be allowed for the whole year or calculated proportionately with reference to the period during which the undertaking remained in operation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss despite the loss return not having been filed within the time prescribed under section 139(3), in the light of section 139(9).

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by an earlier decision of the same court on the effect of the time limit for declaring loss and the consequence of delayed filing of the return.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to carry forward the loss, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under section 80J was to be allowed for the whole year or calculated proportionately with reference to the period during which the undertaking remained in operation.

Analysis: The issue was treated as governed by an earlier decision of the same court on the manner of computing relief under section 80J for a year in which the undertaking operated only for part of the period.

Conclusion: Relief under section 80J was held admissible for the entire year and not required to be calculated proportionately, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered for the assessee, leaving the Revenue unsuccessful on all points decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material legal issue is already covered by binding precedent, the reference is to be answered consistently with that precedent on the corresponding statutory question.

---