Skip to content


Choudhary Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 22 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1977]109ITR6(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 75 and 75(1)
AppellantChoudhary Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate Bhagirath Das,; Ashok Bhan and; B.K. Gupta, Advs.
Respondent Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.K. Jhingan, Advs.
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........is an exception to these provisions and it provides that a registered firm will not be entitled to carry forward and set off the losses under these provisions. the reason for this provision is found in section 75(1), which entitles the partners of the firm to have the losses of the firm apportioned between them and to carry forward and set off the apportioned loss in accordance with the provisions of sections 71, 72, 73, 74 and 74a. in view of section 75(2) of the income-tax act, the question referred to us is answered against the assessee. no costs.
Judgment:

Chinnappa Reddy, Actg. C.J.

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred for our decision the following question :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to claim the carry forward of the losses of the registered firm even in spite of Section 75(2) of the Income-tax Act ?'

2. There can only be one answer in the reference and that has to be against the assessee. Section 75(1), Section 73(2), Section 74(1) and Section 74A(3) provide for the carrying forward and set off of losses of an assessee. Section 75(2) is an exception to these provisions and it provides that a registered firm will not be entitled to carry forward and set off the losses under these provisions. The reason for this provision is found in Section 75(1), which entitles the partners of the firm to have the losses of the firm apportioned between them and to carry forward and set off the apportioned loss in accordance with the provisions of Sections 71, 72, 73, 74 and 74A. In view of Section 75(2) of the Income-tax Act, the question referred to us is answered against the assessee. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //