9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 regarding the carry forward and set-off of losses between different business activities. Analysis: The case involved a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, concerning the allowance of a loss suffered by an assessee company in its coal mining business to be carried forward for deduction against future profits from a coal-raising contract. The main question was whether the coal mining business and the coal-raising contract constituted the same business for the purpose of loss set-off under Section 24(2) of the Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 24(2) which allow for the carry forward of losses in a business to be set off against profits in the subsequent year if the same business is continued. The court emphasized the need for a factual and legal inference to determine whether different business activities constitute the same business for loss set-off purposes. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, emphasizing factors such as unity of control, inter-relation of businesses, common books of account, and inter-dependence in determining the sameness of business activities. The court concluded that the coal mining business and the coal-raising contract were distinct activities and not the same business due to the lack of inter-dependence and the commencement of the contract business after the closure of the mining business. The court distinguished the case from Sundarapandia Nadar and Bros. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Madras, where forward contracts were considered part of the general business, as the new venture in that case did not involve setting off losses from one venture against profits of another. Additionally, the court discussed Commr. of Income Tax, West Bengal v. International Industries Ltd., Calcutta, where losses from a closed business could not be set off against profits of a subsequent business due to the distinct nature of the activities. Ultimately, the court held that the coal mining business and the coal-raising contract were different activities of the appellant company and did not constitute the same business for loss set-off purposes under Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The court answered the question of law in favor of treating the two activities as different businesses and directed the assessee to bear the costs of the reference. The judgment was delivered by Justices G.K. Mitter and Syed Sadat Abdul Masud of the Calcutta High Court.
|
