9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the losses from breeding horses and pigs are admissible deductions under section 10(27) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to set off these losses against income from other sources under section 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Losses under Section 10(27): The primary issue was whether the losses from the breeding of horses and pigs amounting to Rs. 74,065 and Rs. 19,918 respectively are admissible deductions in computing the total income. Section 10(27) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, exempts any income derived from a business of livestock breeding, poultry, or dairy farming. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed these losses on the grounds that the incomes from these activities were exempt under section 10(27). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld this decision, reasoning that since the income from these activities was exempt, the losses should not be allowed to be set off against other income. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance, referencing the Patna High Court's decision in Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that if income from a source is exempt, losses from that source cannot be set off against other income. 2. Set-off of Losses under Section 70: The second issue was whether the assessee could set off these losses against income from other sources under section 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 70 allows for the set-off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head of income. However, the Tribunal noted that sections 70 to 80 do not provide for all losses to be allowed under all circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the language of section 10(27) was clear and unambiguous, and thus the losses from breeding livestock could not be included in the computation of income under other heads. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, and the High Court examined whether section 10(27) excluded the business of livestock breeding or merely the income derived from it. The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to determine the correct interpretation. High Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 10(27) and 70 in detail. It noted that section 10(27) excludes "any income derived from a business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming" but does not exclude the business itself from the operation of the Act. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd., which held that the exclusion of income does not necessarily exclude the business itself and that losses from such a business could be set off against other income. The Court also considered the decision in CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd., which held that losses from a source not liable to tax could not be carried forward or set off against other income. However, the Court distinguished this case on the grounds that section 10(27) did not exclude the business of livestock breeding but only the income from it. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the losses from being set off against other income. The losses from the breeding of horses and pigs were admissible deductions and could be set off against the assessee's other income. Judgment: The High Court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The losses on account of breeding horses and pigs were entitled to set off against other income. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs. Both judges concurred with the decision.
|
