9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to set off carried forward loss against income under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the issue of whether the assessee, a private limited company owning an oil and rice mill, was entitled to set off a carried forward loss of Rs. 2,15,724 against the income of the relevant accounting year under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had refused the set-off claiming that the business was not carried on during the year, as only the lease of the mill was in operation, not the manufacturing activities. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The crucial point of contention was whether the business carried on during the relevant year was the same as the one in which the loss was originally sustained, as required by section 24(2) for set-off. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax v. Lakshmi Silk Mills, where it was held that income from letting out commercial assets for temporary use should be considered income from the same business. The judgment emphasized that as long as the assets were used for business purposes, it did not matter if they were utilized by the assessee or someone else. This principle was applied to the present case where the entire machinery was leased out, indicating a continuation of business activity. In another case, Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Mills Co. Ltd., the court reiterated that allowing others to use business assets for the same business purpose constituted business income. The judgment highlighted that the cessation of business should be clear and unequivocal for the income not to be considered business income. In the present case, the assessee had not completely discontinued business operations, as evidenced by the sale of oil and groundnut during the relevant accounting year. Based on the evidence presented and the principles established in the aforementioned cases, the court concluded that the assessee had not ceased business activities and was still engaged in the business of purchasing groundnut, extracting oil, and selling the products. Therefore, the court held in favor of the assessee, allowing the set-off of the carried forward loss against the income of the relevant year under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act. The court also dismissed the writ petitions seeking relief from income-tax arrears for the respective assessment years, as the main issue had been resolved in favor of the assessee.
|
