TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals), for the sake of convenience are disposed of by a common order. 2. The assessee is a trust. The first grievance common to both the assessment years is that the claim of exemption as laid down under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') was wrongly net allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Here is will be necessary to point out that the commissioner (Appeals) in his order has allowed the claim of exemption as laid down under section 11 on the income from house property amounting to Rs. 47,197 for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 48,642 for the assessment year 1982-83 and the claim of exemption is, therefore, limited to the other incomes, which was only business income for the assessment year 1981-82 and business i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 1982-83 the claim of investment allowance was wrongly not entertained. 5. The assessee's learned counsel, Shri Mehta, submitted to us that once the income was held not exempt and liable to tax, it must follow as a corollary that the income should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, according to Shri Mehta, the prescribed return of total income in the case of assesses claiming exemption under section 11 (Form No. 3A) in item 7 of Part I provides for deduction of unabsorbed losses or allowances brought forward from the earlier years under section 32(2), 35(4) and 72 to 79 of the Act and investment allowance/development rebate/development allowance under section 32A (3) /33(2) /33A (2) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities. 6. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian, submitted to us that where the assessee was a trust the income has to be computed in accordance with the provision of Chapter III of the Act, and the other provisions of the Act mentioned in other Chapters of the At, have no application. He, therefore, submitted that there was no question of carry forward of the business loss determined for the assessment year 1981-82 and its set off against the income for the assessment year 1982-83 or the allowance of the claim of investment allowance in working out the business income for the assessment year 1982-83. Coming to the claim of deduction of provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 27,582, Shri Subramani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s become payable during the previous year. He, therefor, vehemently argued before us that both the rulings cited by the learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian, do not apply in the present case. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions Chapter III deals with incomes, which do not form part of the total income. i.e., in other words, incomes which are exempt under the various provisions of section 10 To 13A of the Act. Viewed in this context when the income of the assessee-trust other than income from house property was held to be not entitled to exemption under any of the provisions of Chapter III, it automatically follows that the income from these sources will have to be worked out under the provisions of othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled to set off the loss brought forward from the assessment year 1981-82 against the income from business for the assessment year 1982-83 and the amount, if any, which could not be set off can be carried forward to the following assessment years and so on and so forth up to the limit laid down under that section. We, however, find that the assessee's claim of carry forward of business loss assessed for the assessment year 1981-82 against the business income for the assessment year 1982-83 has not been examined from this angle. We, therefore, direct the ITO to examine the assessee's claim in the light of our observations in this order and determine the reliefs, if any, admissible to the assessee-trust accordingly. 9. It also follows as ....