https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37464 Late filing of the return did not defeat the assessee's entitlement to carry forward business loss, because the binding Supreme Court authority on delayed returns and loss carry-forward governed the issue and the claim was allowed. By contrast, the cost of rollers used in sugar works was not eligible for depreciation or immediate revenue deduction: the Schedule under rule 8 prescribed a nil rate for that item, and that rate applied even where the rollers were first installed as part of the machinery rather than as replacements. Revenue deduction was available only in the manner specifically permitted on replacement, so the rollers claim was rejected. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:18:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37464 Late filing of the return did not defeat the assessee's entitlement to carry forward business loss, because the binding Supreme Court authority on delayed returns and loss carry-forward governed the issue and the claim was allowed. By contrast, the cost of rollers used in sugar works was not eligible for depreciation or immediate revenue deduction: the Schedule under rule 8 prescribed a nil rate for that item, and that rate applied even where the rollers were first installed as part of the machinery rather than as replacements. Revenue deduction was available only in the manner specifically permitted on replacement, so the rollers claim was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37464