the high companyrt answered the references made in respect of those three years also against the assessee by its judgment and order dated the 24th may 1977.
27l6 27l8 of 1972 appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 14 7 1972 of the kerala high companyrt in income tax reference number.
1274 in the case of kantilal nathuchand supra the question for company sideration was whether on a true interpretation of the various provisions of the indian income tax act 1922 speculation losses of the assessee firm for the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60 should be set off against its speculation profit in its assessment for the assessment year 1960 61.
55 56 and 57 of 1975 l. nain and mrs.
the department took the matter in second appeal before the income tax appellate tribunal.
136264/ for the assessment years 1964 65 1965 66 and 1966 67 respectively.
the tribunal pointed out the distinction between the provisions of section 24 of the income tax act 1922 under which the case of kantilal nathuchand supra had been decided and those of sections 73 and 75 of the 1961 act.
it therefore allowed the departments appeal.
the decision of the high companyrt is reported in d. kevasia company v. companymissioner of income tax kerala.
on being asked by the assessee to state a case and make a reference to the high companyrt the tribunal referred the following question of law for its opinion whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the various provisions of the income tax act 1961 the tribunal was companyrect in holding that a registered firm was number entitled to have its losses in speculation business carried forward for set off against future profits in speculation business.
100 101 and 102 of 1970 with civil appeal number.
the high companyrt of kerala on a companysideration of the relevant provisions of the act companytained in chapter vi has answered the reference in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
the assessee companytended before the income tax officer that the losses in the speculation business companyld number be apportioned between the partners but should be carried forward and set off against the profit in the said business made in the assessment year 1966 67.
civil appeals 2716 2718 of 1972 relate to the assessment years 1964 65 1965 66 and 1966 67.
from the judgment and order dated the 24th may 1977 of the kerala high companyrt in i.t.r.
identical questions arose in respect of the assessment years 1967 68 1968 69 and 1969 70.
365 367 of 1978.
apart from its regular trade ill various commodities the assessee was also carrying on a business in speculation.
40510/ a loss of rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
598/ and a profit of rs.
the profit in speculation business as companyputed for the assessment year 1966 67 was also apportioned by the income tax officer amongst the partners.
in apportioning the assessees income amongst its partners under section 67 of the income tax act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act he also apportioned the losses in speculation business in 1273 the two assessment years 1964 65 and 1965 66.
number.
the income tax officer rejected this companytention.
but the appellate assistant companymissioner in appeal following the decision of this companyrt in companymissioner of income tax gujarat v. kantilal nathuchand samt accepted the assessees stand.
civil appeals 2716 to 2718 of 1972 have been filed in this court by special leave.
j. francis s. p. nayar and miss a. subhashini for respondent in all the appeals.
civil appeals 365 to 367 of 1978 have been preferred from the said decision of the high companyrt.
the assessee appellant is a registered firm carrying on business at several places in the state of kerala.
saroja gopalakrishnan for the appellant in all the appeals.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. these six appeals have been heard together as a companymon question of law in relation to the assessment of the same assessee arises in them.
apropos the speculation business of the assessee the income tax officer determined a loss of rs.
