This loss was claimed as a business loss.
This loss occurred on account of bombing in December, 1941, a date falling within the accounting period ending on April 12, 1942, relevant for the assessment year 1942 43.
The Income Tax Officer rejected that claim.
C. Manchanda, B. D. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
C. Chagla, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala, for the respondent.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated April 27, 1967 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer .
The family was disrupted on March 28, 1939.
In the companyrse of such money lending business, properties were taken over in settlement of debts as and when occasion arose.
As demanded by the assessee the Tribunal submitted the statement of the case to the High Court seeking its opinion on the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
During the war, in general with others, the assessee suffered damages to these properties on account of Japanese bombing.
Even after the partition the assesses companytinued the money lending business in Malaya.
75 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a decision of the Madras High Court in a reference under section 66 1 of the Indian Income Tax, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Material facts are these The assessee respondent was a member of a Hindu undivided family which carried on money lending business in India and abroad.
1,93.750/ was an allowable deduction under section 10 of the Income tax Act?
The assessee received some shares in some companypanies, properties and gardens and certain other items in Malaya.
2016 of 1969.
