9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss allowable as a deduction under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be carried forward and set off against business profits of future years under section 72(1) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 32(1)(iii) and Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue revolves around whether the loss from the sale of assets, as stipulated under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be carried forward and set off against future business profits under section 72(1). The assessee, an American shipping company, disclosed a net loss and claimed a deduction under section 32(1)(iii) due to the sale of two vessels at a price lower than their written down value. The assessee argued that this loss should be computed as a business loss and carried forward under section 72. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, stating that section 32(1)(iii) allowances are not intended to be carried forward as they are excluded from section 32(2). This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who noted that deductions for unabsorbed depreciation can only be claimed on assets still in use. 2. Tribunal's Decision and Revenue's Argument: On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sided with the assessee, holding that the loss from the sale of assets under section 32(1)(iii) should be considered a business loss and could be carried forward under section 72. The Tribunal emphasized that section 32(1)(iii) allowances, being excluded from section 32(2), should be presumed to be governed by section 72. The Tribunal also noted that section 72 does not explicitly exclude allowances under section 32(1)(iii) from being deducted in computing business profits. The Revenue contended that section 32(2) contains special provisions for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation allowances, and thus, the general provisions of section 72 should not apply. The Revenue argued that the Legislature's exclusion of section 32(1)(iii) from section 32(2) indicates an intention not to carry forward such allowances. 3. Legal Precedents and Interpretation: Several legal precedents were cited to support the respective contentions. The principle that specific provisions override general ones was highlighted in Raghunath Prasad v. CIT. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. National Syndicate clarified that losses from the sale of assets used in business should be treated as business losses. In CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court discussed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, distinguishing it from business losses. The Madras High Court's decision in Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. CIT was also referenced, emphasizing that section 32(1)(iii) aims to treat the deficiency from asset sales as a business loss, provided the business is carried on for some part of the relevant assessment year. 4. Court's Conclusion: The court concluded that the allowance under section 32(1)(iii) is not strictly a depreciation allowance but a balancing allowance, intended to be considered in computing business income under section 29. The court held that while depreciation allowances under section 32(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), and (vi) can be carried forward under section 32(2), the balancing allowance under section 32(1)(iii) should be treated as a business loss and carried forward under section 72. The court emphasized that a loss once computed under section 32(1)(iii) must be carried forward as a business loss, subject to the eight-year limitation under section 72(3). Judgment: The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, stating that the loss allowable under section 32(1)(iii) should be included in the net result of computation under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" for the purpose of carrying forward and setting off against future business profits under section 72(1). No order as to costs was made.
|
