1965 (3) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a registered firm is entitled to carry forward speculative losses suffered in an earlier year and set them off against speculative profits of a subsequent year.
2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Applicability of the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case.
4. The general practice of following decisions of other High Courts in income-tax matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a registered firm is entitled to carry forward speculative losses suffered in an earlier year and set them off against speculative profits of a subsequent year:

The assessee, a registered firm, suffered a speculation loss of Rs. 2,60,128 in the assessment year 1958-59, which was apportioned among the partners by the Income-tax Officer under section 23(6). In the subsequent assessment year 1959-60, the firm earned a speculation profit of Rs. 2,38,777. The firm contended that the previous year's speculative loss should be carried forward and set off against the current year's speculative profit. The Income-tax Officer rejected this contention and apportioned the profits among the partners as he had done with the losses. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's contention, stating that the registered firm could carry forward the speculative loss and set it off against future profits from speculation transactions as per section 24(2)(i). The Tribunal's interpretation was that the loss from speculative business should be carried forward in the firm's own assessment and not be apportioned among the partners under section 23(6).

2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:

The court examined the provisions of sections 23 and 24 in detail. Section 23(5) provides for the assessment of a registered firm and its partners, while section 24 deals with the set-off of losses under one head against profits under another head. The court noted that section 24(1) includes a proviso that speculative losses cannot be set off against other business profits but only against speculative profits. The second proviso to section 24(1) states that for a registered firm, any loss not set off against other income should be apportioned among the partners. Section 24(2) allows for the carry-forward of losses to subsequent years, including speculative losses, which can only be set off against future speculative profits.

3. Applicability of the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case:

The court referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kantilal Nathuchand [1964] 53 I.T.R. 420, which supported the assessee's contention. In that case, the Gujarat High Court held that a registered firm could carry forward speculative losses and set them off against future speculative profits, and such losses should not be apportioned among the partners. The Bombay High Court noted that it generally follows the decisions of other High Courts in income-tax matters to maintain uniformity, barring certain exceptions.

4. The general practice of following decisions of other High Courts in income-tax matters:

The court emphasized its practice of following the decisions of other High Courts in income-tax matters, even if it might have a different view. This practice aims to ensure consistency in the interpretation of all-India statutes. The court cited previous instances where it adhered to this practice, even when it disagreed with the other High Court's interpretation. The court found no reason to depart from this practice in the present case, especially given the elaborate judgment by the Gujarat High Court.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that a registered firm is entitled to carry forward speculative losses suffered in an earlier year and set them off against speculative profits of a subsequent year. The court followed the Gujarat High Court's decision and maintained the general practice of adhering to the interpretations of other High Courts in income-tax matters. The court acknowledged that the Revenue's contentions had merit but chose to follow the established practice for consistency. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →