Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1990 (6) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, allowing carry forward of loss The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal against the tax authorities' refusal to carry forward a ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, allowing carry forward of loss

                            The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal against the tax authorities' refusal to carry forward a determined loss of Rs. 3,17,010 due to late filing of the return. The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of section 80 would apply from 1st April 1985 and not retrospectively to the earlier assessment year, rejecting the CIT(A)'s decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Brij Mohan. The Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to carry forward the loss for adjustment in subsequent assessment years.




                            Issues:
                            Refusal to carry forward determined loss due to late filing of return.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            Issue 1: Refusal to carry forward determined loss
                            The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B revolves around the refusal of the tax authorities to carry forward a determined loss of Rs. 3,17,010 due to the late filing of the return by the assessee. The return was initially due by 31st July 1984, with an extension granted until 25th Nov 1984. However, the return was filed on 10th Dec 1984, showing a loss of Rs. 2,94,978. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the loss at Rs. 3,17,010 but opined that it could not be carried forward as the return was filed after the extended period. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in Brij Mohan vs. CIT and the amendment under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, affecting the carry forward of losses. The CIT(A) concluded that the return must be filed within the allowed or extended period to avail of the benefit of carrying forward the loss.

                            Issue 2: Applicability of Legal Provisions
                            The counsel for the assessee argued that the provisions of the 1922 Act were similar to the 1961 Act concerning sections 22 and 139, with the main distinction being the provision for interest under the latter. The counsel contended that the decision in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. was relevant to the case, emphasizing that the observations made by the CIT(A) regarding the absence of an extension provision under the 1922 Act were incorrect. The counsel also highlighted the impact of the amendment to section 80 for the assessment year 1984-85, emphasizing that losses determined from returns filed under section 139(4) should also be carried forward. The counsel referenced CBDT Circular No. 397, dated 16th Oct 1984, explaining the amendment in section 80 and argued that it was binding on tax authorities. Additionally, the counsel presented a list of judgments supporting the assessee's position.

                            Issue 3: Arguments and Counterarguments
                            The Departmental Representative supported the tax authorities' decisions, reiterating the reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. The representative emphasized that the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, was not considered in the decisions cited by the assessee's counsel, pointing to specific judgments like Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Gujarat Leather Industries Ltd. The Departmental Representative urged the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. In response, the counsel for the assessee clarified that most decisions relied upon pertained to assessment years post the 1970 amendment and argued against the applicability of the said amendment to the issue at hand.

                            Final Decision:
                            After examining the submissions and relevant orders, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. Citing the majority view of High Courts and Tribunal judgments supporting the assessee's position, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Annu Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. by the Delhi Bench, which held that the amended provisions of section 80 would apply from 1st April 1985 and not retrospectively to the earlier assessment year. The Tribunal also noted that the observations in the Supreme Court's decision in Brij Mohan were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to carry forward the loss for adjustment in subsequent assessment years.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found