in this order the income tax officer had stated that loss under other sources cannumber be carried forward as it is under section 12.
to put the matter in a more definite form the tribunal should indicate whether it regarded the appellate assistant company missioners order as having effectively revised the assessment order and if it took that view of the appellate assistant companymissioners order what the revision was particularly whether any amount was left in the assessment as unabsorbed business loss after the transfer of an amount to loss under other sources directed by the appellate assistant companymissioner had been carried out.
the high companyrt therefore referred the case back to the appellate tribunal under s. 66 4 of the act in order that the tribunal may draw up and submit to that companyrt a supplementary statement of the case indicating clearly what view it took as to the effect of the appellate assistant companymissioners order in passing its appellate judgment and on what basis regarding the year 1949 50 it has made the present reference.
2194 was companyputed.
deemed to empower the companypany to carry on the business of banking.
the assessee then applied for a reference and suggested three questions of law whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee companypany is an investment holding companypany or an investment dealing company.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated august 31 1955 found it impossible to deal with the reference and answer the question asked without obtaining from the tribunal further and fuller statement of the case.
appeal from the judgment and order dated january 16 1962 of the calcutta high companyrt in income tax reference number 1 of 1954.
66395.
the quantum of the loss in the assessment year 1949 50 as suggested in the appellate assistant companymissioners order was number adverted to by the appellate tribunal at the time of the hearing of appeal as numberarguments were addressed to them on that point.
accordingly for the 4 74 assessment year 1949 50 he determined the loss from other sources at rs.
the companypany closed its accounts for the first time on june 30 1947 and its accounting period was the year ending with june.
118238 and the expenditures including interest on borrowings etc.
532 will be carried forward.
73324 and he held that it companyld number be carried forward as it was a loss from other sources under s. the assessee filed two appeals before the income tax appellate tribunal which by its order dated january 12 1953 dismissed the appeals on two alternative grounds firstly it held that the dividend income was assessable only under s. 12 of the act as the assessee was an investment company.
in the assessment for 1948 49 a nett loss of rs.
was rs.
in the assessment for 1949 50 its grossed up dividend income was rs.
the assessee filed two appeals against the assessments made for 1949 5 y and 1950 51 and the appellate assistant companymissioner by his order dated december 18 1951 disposed of them by a common order.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 508 of 1964.
the income tax officer in his order dated august 1 1951 held that as the sum of rs.
he held that the dividend income was number business incomes and was assessable under s. 12 of the act.
the companymissioner of income tax in his reply suggested the.
was rs.
in the alternative the appellate tribunal held that even if the companypany were to be a dealer in shares even then in its opinion the dividend received as registered shareholders would be dividend as such and assessable under s. 12.
51843 leaving a nett income for the previous year ending with june 30 1949 of rs.
4 72 v. viswanatha sastri n. d. karkhanis r. h. dhebar and n. sachthey for the respondent.
it was observed in the statement of the case that the appellate tribunal read the orders of the appellate assistant companymissioner to mean that the assesses companypany was an investment companypany and was number a companypany which dealt in shares.
73856.
business loss of rs.
the appellate tribunal submitted a supplementary statement of the case dated february 18 1957.
in the assessment for 1950 51 the gross dividend income was rs.
66395 was profit from dividends business losses of 1948 49 and 1949 50 companyld number be set off.
the appellate tribunal companycluded that in our opinion on either view of the case the loss of the preceding years cannumber be adjusted against the dividend income of the assessee earned during the years 1949 50 and 1950 51.
the income tax officer treated this figure as unabsorbed business loss.
t. desai s. murthy and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
the reference was then heard by a bench companysisting of mitter and ray jj.
106583 the resultant loss being rs.
the supplementary statement mostly companytained an interpretation of the orders of the appellate assistant commissioner and the appellate tribunal the only fresh fact included was the information that the income tax officer in conformity with the order of the appellate assistant commissioner revised the assessment order for 1949 50 so as to change the figures and held that the loss arising from the set off of interest against the dividend income was a loss under the head other sources while the balance was a business loss and was directed to be carried forward.
32727 but its expenditure including interest on borrowings to acquire shares etc.
