2006 (3) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....positors at the time of accepting deposits received under the DLIP scheme, being deferred revenue expenditure (claimed by the assessee also as such) as revenue expenditure relating to the previous year assessable for the assessment year 1985-86? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that Form No. 6 signed by a person other than the person entitled to sign as required under section 140 of the Income-tax Act as valid?" In so far as the first question is concerned, in an almost identical situation, a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur [2006] 283 ITR 71 (I.T.R.C. No. 48/1999 disposed of on January 31, 2006) has reframed the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth other particulars as may be prescribed. Section 140 of the Act specifies as to who has to sign the returns. It provides that the returns under section 139 shall be signed and verified in the case of an individual by the individual himself, in the case of Hindu undivided family, by the karta, in the case of a company, by the managing director thereof, in the case of a firm, the managing partner thereof, in the case of a local authority, by the principal officer and in the case of any other association, any member of the association and in the absence of such persons, for the reasons set out in the section by a person who is mentioned therein or by some person duly au....