on further appeal the income tax appellate tribunal took the same view as the income tax officer had taken.
hence the appeal.
the appellate tribunal rejected the application.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the high companyrt of madras in tax case petition number 44 of 1961.
the appellant is a hindu undivided family carrying on business with its head office at pageneri in ramanathapuram district madras state and also business at paritpuntar in the federated malaya states.
4 5 and 6 he held that as the said purchases of property and the outlay thereon were all made during the japanese occupation of malaya and in occupation currency then in circulation the purchase prices of the same required to be scaled down in accordance with the schedule of rates companytained in the debtor and creditor occupation period ordinance 1948 passed by the legislative companyncil of federated malaya states and on that basis the profit and loss in respect of the last 3 items of the property were worked out by him as under purchase scaled number sale of price in down sale profit loss property occupation value of amount currency purchase price siradan house 25453 9000 7000 2000 2.
appeal by special leave from the order dated july 31 1961 of the madras high companyrt in tax case petition number 44 of 1961.
8th purattasai tharana 23 9 44 35 garden.
35 garden 2668 190 1164 974 in the result the income tax officer companyputed a profit of 382 in respect of the sale of the above gardens as against the loss of 68405 claimed by the appellant.
in respect of the assessment year 1951 52 the appellant showed in the return filed on his behalf a total world income of rs.
536865880 6.
38 garden 53686 3830 5880 2050 3.
213079 which included a sum of 21350 as profit from the business at paritpuntar.
26681164 total 88294 19880 in respect of items number.
the appellant applied to the tribunal under s. 66 1 of the income tax act requiring it to state a case and refer the following question of law arising out of its order to the decision of the high companyrt whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of the loss of 67764 as claimed and the companyputation of the profit at 382 is valid in law.
28 of ani angirasa 14 silama house.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 131 of 1963.
1 2 and 3 above the income tax officer accepted the claim of the appellant but in regard to the remaining three items namely items number.
2333 1425 4.
thereupon the appellant moved the high companyrt under s. 66 2 of the income tax act praying for an order directing the appellate tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of its order.
on appeal the appellate assistant companymissioner companyfirmed the order of the income tax officer.
25453 7000 5.
k. daphtary attorney general s. v. gupte solicitor general n. d. karkhanis r. h. dhebar and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
23rd avani angirasa number 23 silama house.
srinivasan and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
24th avani tharana 15 9 44 38 garden.
5th avani subhanu 21 8 43 siradan house.
in companyputing the said profit from the business at paritpuntar the appellant claimed an aggregate loss of 68405 incurred on the sale of house property and rubber gardens as detailed below si number date of purchase companyt price sale price in dollars 1.
