9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 10 of the said Act?" The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It derives income from shares held in certain firms, dividend income, etc. The assessee family had 9/16th share in the firm, Messrs. R. S. Jodhamal Kuthiala, New Delhi. There is a dispute as to whether this firm was an unregistered or a registered firm, i.e., Messrs. R. S. Jodhamal Kuthiala, New Delhi. In the order of the Income-tax Officer it is described as a registered firm. In the order of the Tribunal it is described as an unregistered firm. But, so far as the present case is concerned, it will not make any difference. In the return filed by the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1956-57 the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 9,447 regarding the fam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and gains and it could not be set-off against income, profits and gains of any partners of the firm. It was further contended that since the loss in question pertained to an unregistered firm, such loss could only be set off against the income of the very unregistered firm and not against the assessee's income. The Appellate Tribunal did not accept the contentions of the department and affirmed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner basing itself on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. M. Muthuraman Chettiar. The Commissioner of Income-tax being dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal applied under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring it to refer the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very distinct business, but on the aggregate of the profits of all the businesses carried on by the assessee. Therefore, where the assessee carries on several businesses, he is entitled under section 10, and not under section 24(1), to set off losses in one business against profits in another. If section 24(1) has no application the second proviso thereto can also have no application. Further, the second proviso to section 24(1) applies only where the assessee is an unregistered firm." These observations fully cover the present case. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As there is no representation for the respondent, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
