TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded by the registry. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported with the affidavit of Shri Sandeep Arjan Khetwani, Director of assesseecompany. In the application and the affidavit the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 30.06.2010. The order passed by ld. CIT(A) was not served at the address given in the Form-35. In the application the assessee/applicant further pleaded that the assessee-company was suffered loss over several years and the assessee had been in the process of winding up or closure business activity. Hence, the registered office was closed, the affairs of the company were being looked after by Shri Radhakishnan Khetwani. Shri Radha Krishna Khetwani ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the change of their address to the Income Tax Authorities as required under the law. 4. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and noticed that on 16.08.2016, while hearing this case, the ld. DR for the Revenue was directed to verify the correctness of non-service of impugned order at the known address of assessee. In compliance of Tribunal's order, the ld. DR for the Revenue filed the report along with the copy of return envelope through which the impugned order was sent. The perusal of record revealed that the copy of order was sent to the address appearing on Form- 35 and the same was returned. The record submitted in compliance of Tribunal's order further reveals that the assessee applied for copy of impugned order v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned CIT-(A) erred in considering the provisions of Sec 50C as applicable while computing capital gain in case of sale of depreciable asset u/s 50. If fiction under Sec 50C is allowed to extrapolate on fiction created by sec 50, then it would amount to creating 'fiction on fiction'. Thus CIT(A) is not justified in adopting the stamp duty valuation in place of amount shown in the sale deed. 6. At the outset, at the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he has not pressing ground no.4 to 6.Thus, ground no. 4 to 6 are dismissed as not pressed. We have seen that assessee in the remaining grounds of appeals i.e. Ground No. 1 to 3 has raised the sole and substantive issue relates to confirming of the action of AO for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the assessment disallowed the set off of carried forward business loss holding that carried forward business loss cannot be set of against the income from capital gain u/s. 72 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground upheld the action of AO on two counts (i) that section 50 being a special provision shall prevail the general provision for computing capital gain in respect of depreciable asset. First, section 50 is a charging section independent of section 45 & 48, thus, being deeming provision is required to be strictly interpreted. (ii) Even a fiction is created u/s 15, the transfer of assets/block of asset will result in STCG which cannot change the nature of assets. Nature of asset and the capital gain earned cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forward to the following assessment year and is allowable for being set off "against the profits, if any, of that business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year". It is thus for setting off the income that while the loss to be carried forward has to be under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", the gains against which such loss can be set off, has to be profits of "any business or profession carried on by him and assessable in that assessment year". In other words, there is no requirement of the gains being taxable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and thus, as long as gains are "of any business or profession carried on by the assessee and assessable to tax for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff the losses incurred against the income from different sources under the head "Business income". The issue was thus confined to the question as to how the total come for a particular assessment year is to be computed. This decision has no bearing on the issue in appeal before us. So far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Urmila Ramesh (supra) is concerned, it will have no bearing on the issue before us, because it refers to simultaneous application of s. 41(2) and s. 50 on the same amount. In contrast to that position, the short reference to s. 41(2) in the present case is to show the nature of income in contradistinction with the head under which it is to be assessed. Revenue thus does not derive any advanta....