1967 (1) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1,34,317 as development rebate so that its return showed a loss. The first respondent by an order of his dated November 18, 1961, considered the return as null and void on the view that it was not filed within the assessment year and that in view of the provisions of section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which according to him applied to the case, the loss returned by the return of the petitioner would have to be ignored and not carried forward. The petition is to quash the order. There is a further prayer that this court should direct the first respondent to set off the loss of prior years in the assessment year 1957-58. In support of the petition it is contended that the view of the first respondent cannot be supported. Learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is to be granted, effect shall first be given to sub-section (2). In other words, as we already indicated, allowance for depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) will follow and not precede the set-off permissible under section 24(2). The view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Speed-a-way Private Limited receives support from Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines. The Supreme Court there observed : "But it is wrong to assume that section 24(2) also deals with the carrying-forward of depreciation. This carry forward having been provided in section 10(2)(vi) and in a different manner, section 24(2) only deals with losses other than losses due to depreciation. " It follows, therefore, that the first respondent was not correc....