NDLI: Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p. Vs. Shah Sadiq and Sons.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Income Tax Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Income Tax Act, 1922/lncome Tax Act, 1961-S. 24/s. 297- Losses-Right to carry forward-Accrued under 1922 Act-Whether a vested right-Whether saved by 1961 Act. General Clauses Act, 1897-s. 6(c)-Effect of-On vested rights. Statutory Interpretation-'Saving provision' of statute-Construction of-Rights which are accrued are saved unless they are expressly taken away. The assessee, a partnership firm, enjoyed the status of a registered firm for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1962-63 the assessee claimed that a loss of Rs.60,054 suffered in the speculation business in the assessment year 1960-61 and the loss of Rs.6,839 suffered in the assessment year 1961-62 should he set off against the speculation profit of Rs.58,102 for the assessment year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim holding that as the assessee was a registered firm, the losses could be carried forward and set off only by the partners and not by the firm. The appeal by the assessee before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner was dismissed. In the appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the right to carry forward the losses relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 was governed by the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and that s. 75(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was applicable to the assessment year 1960-61 had no application in the facts of this case; that when an Act was passed repealing an earlier enactment, it could not be said to supersede any right already accrued under the repealed enactment unless there was something in the repealing Act to indicate that clearly and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to have the losses brought forward from the preceding two years and set off against the profits earned for the year 1962-63. In the Reference, the High Court held: (1) that a right had accrued to the assessee by virtue of 1922 Act which entitled him to have the losses from speculation business in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62 to be carried forward and set off against the profits in speculation business of future years; (2) that was a right which had accrued to it before the 1961 Act was brought into force; (3) that by virtue of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act that right continued to subsist and (4) that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to set off the speculation losses suffered in the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 against the speculation profits of the assessment year 1962-63.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee
Neutral Citation	1987 INSC 108
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.p.
Respondent	Shah Sadiq And Sons.
SCR	[1987] 2 S.C.R. 942
Judgement Date	1987-04-14
Case Number	1598

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p. Vs. Shah Sadiq and Sons.

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow Vs. Onkar Saran and Sons

Sohan Pathak and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p.

Baladin Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p.

Lakshmiratian Cotion Milis Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p

M/s Ramnarain Sons (pr.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p., Lucknow

Tika Ram & Sons Ltd. Etc. Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax U.p., Lucknow

M.s.p Nadar Sons, Virudhu Nagar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (central), Madras

Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p. Vs. Shah Sadiq and Sons.

Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p. Vs. Shah Sadiq and Sons.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow Vs. Onkar Saran and Sons

Sohan Pathak and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p.

Baladin Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p.

Lakshmiratian Cotion Milis Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p

M/s Ramnarain Sons (pr.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p., Lucknow

Tika Ram & Sons Ltd. Etc. Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax U.p., Lucknow

M.s.p Nadar Sons, Virudhu Nagar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (central), Madras

Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p. Vs. Shah Sadiq and Sons.