2010 (12) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rengarajan, Jr. Standing Counsel represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the learned authorised representative in regard to ground No. 2 which was against the action of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the re-opening of the assessment, that the re-opening was done without any fresh material and consequently was bad in law. 4. In reply, the learned DR submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 would apply. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessment in this case was not made and the return was processed only u/s. 143(1) in view of the decision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) there was a specific bar against the set off of the losses under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" against the salary income. It was the submission that section 32(2) was in fact only providing for the carry forward of the depreciation. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virmani Industries P. Ltd., referred to supra, shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. The limitations are applicable to the carrying forward of business losses and do not apply to the carrying forward of unabsorbed depreciation. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court had interpreted the mean....