1968 (2) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates to the propriety of the rejection of the return filed by the petitioner before the first respondent as out of time under section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, The petitioner, which is a private limited company, filed a return on April 1, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61, the corresponding accounting year having ended on March 31, 1960, in which it showed A loss of Rs. 22,562 under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l squarely within section 22(3). Sri Hari Mills Ltd. v. First Income-tax Officer reiterated the principle and pointed out that unabsorbed development rebate also like unabsorbed depreciation would not fall within the ambit of section 22(2A). If, therefore, the return filed by the petitioner covered unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, which would fall under section 10(2), it will be cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot require two separate returns. In our opinion, therefore, the return filed by the petitioner was a composite one and should serve both section 22(2) and section 22(2A). If that part of the return which related to the carry over of business loss was filed out of time under section 22(2A), it did not ipso facto and ipiso jure follow that the return should be rejected in so far as it is under secti....