1986 (7) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relate to the asst. yr. 1981-82. 2. Return showing loss for the respective assessment years were filed by the assessee after expiry of the period prescribed in s. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act). No. application for extension of time under s. 139(1) was given to the ITO by any of the assessee. No notices under s. 139(2) of the Act was issued to any of the assessee by the ITO. All the returns were, however, within the time prescribed in s. 139(4) and as such they were valid returns under the said provision. The ITO declined to carry forward the losses though he determined the losses. The reasoning of the ITO has been that according to s. 139(3), in order to claim carry forward of the losses, the return should have been fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n under s. 139(1) of the Act. Learned representatives of the assessees on the other hand supported the orders of the AAC and thereby placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC). 4. After minutely considering the respective submissions of the parties we find that the point in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. which has been further under similar facts followed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaikishan Gopalkishan & Sons vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 645 (MP), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of Presidency Medical Centre Pvt Ltd. vs....