9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allowance of set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources. 2. Interpretation of the expression "profits or gains chargeable" under the Income Tax Act. 3. Necessity of carrying on business activity in the succeeding year for set off of unabsorbed depreciation. Issue 1: Allowance of set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources: The case involved an assessee-company in liquidation with income from interest accruals during winding up proceedings. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim for set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources as the company had no profits or gains chargeable under the head "Income from business." The Tribunal affirmed this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Virmani Industries, emphasizing that the expression "profits or gains chargeable" is not confined to business income but includes income under all heads specified in the Income Tax Act. Relying on precedents, the Court held that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income from other sources, contrary to the Tribunal's decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of the expression "profits or gains chargeable" under the Income Tax Act: The Court reiterated previous decisions emphasizing that the expression "no profits or gains chargeable" is not limited to business income but encompasses all profits and gains chargeable to tax under various heads. The Court cited cases like Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines to support this interpretation. This clarification was crucial in determining the eligibility for set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from sources other than business. Issue 3: Necessity of carrying on business activity in the succeeding year for set off of unabsorbed depreciation: The Court addressed the question of whether it is necessary for the assessee to carry on business in the following year to avail the benefit of setting off unabsorbed depreciation. Two views were presented: one suggesting the need for business activity in the subsequent year and the other indicating that business activity may not be necessary. Relying on previous judgments, including CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines and Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. cases, the Court adopted the view that carrying on business in the following year is not a prerequisite for availing the benefit of setting off unabsorbed depreciation. The Court held that unabsorbed depreciation carries forward and stands on the same footing as current depreciation, irrespective of business activity in the subsequent year. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources and rejecting the Tribunal's decision. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the expression "profits or gains chargeable" under the Income Tax Act and established that carrying on business activity in the succeeding year is not a condition for setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
|
