TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Bangalore allows loss carry-forward despite late filing, interpreting statute with legislative intent</h1> The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the benefit of carry-forward of loss despite filing the return one day ... Assessment Year, Carry Forward Issues:1. Interpretation of the expression 'before 30-6-1986' in relation to filing of return of loss for assessment year 1986-87.2. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of carry-forward of loss despite filing the return on 30-6-1986.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore involved the interpretation of the expression 'before 30-6-1986' concerning the filing of the return of loss for assessment year 1986-87. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had disallowed the benefit of carry-forward of loss to the assessee-company as the return was filed on 30-6-1986, one day after the specified date. The CIT(A) acknowledged the technicality but concluded that excluding the date would be too strict an interpretation. The CIT(A) directed the ITO to allow the benefit of carry-forward of loss, leading to the department appealing against this direction.2. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a different case, emphasizing that the term 'before' may encompass the specified date as well. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent behind the provision and concluded that the expression 'before 30-6-1986' should be inclusive of the said date. The Tribunal highlighted that the use of 'on or before' in later years did not alter the original legislative intent. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the return filed on 30-6-1986 should be deemed within the time limit allowed under section 139(1), entitling the assessee to the benefit of carry-forward of loss.3. The Tribunal's decision upheld the CIT(A)'s ruling, dismissing the departmental appeal. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the legislative intent behind the language used in the provision, emphasizing that the date specified should be considered inclusive unless explicitly stated otherwise. The judgment serves as a precedent for interpreting similar provisions and highlights the importance of considering legislative intent while interpreting statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
