9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Extent of loss arising from speculative transactions that can be set off against other income. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of whether losses from speculative transactions can be set off against other income. The assessee, a dealer in zinc and metal ingots, reported an income of &8377; 7,796 for the assessment year 1953-54 after setting off a loss of &8377; 23,162 from speculative transactions with Muralidhar Bhagwandas of Bombay. These transactions were forward contracts settled by payment of differences, not involving delivery of goods. The Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal all held that such speculative losses could only be set off against profits from similar speculative transactions, not against other income. The key question referred to the court was whether the loss from speculation could be set off against other income under section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act. The argument presented was that the losses incurred in speculative transactions should be adjusted against profits derived from the same business, not under different heads. The contention was that section 24(1) did not apply, and the proviso to section 24(1) should not be invoked. The court examined the interpretation of the proviso and its application in computing profits and losses under the head of business, profession, or vocation. The court emphasized that the proviso was a substantive provision governing the computation of profits and losses, specifically addressing losses from speculative transactions. The court considered previous decisions, including one by the Bombay High Court, which held that the proviso prohibited the adjustment or set-off of speculative business losses against profits from non-speculative business, even if done under section 10. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the proviso controlled the adjustment of profits and losses under the main head of business, regardless of whether section 24(1) was invoked by the assessee. The court found support for this view in the judgment of Chagla C.J. and concluded that the proviso had real application to section 10, affecting the computation of profits under the head of business. Additionally, the court referred to a decision by the Supreme Court on the proper function of a proviso, emphasizing that a proviso carves out an exception to the main enactment and operates in the same field. The court held that the proviso in question controlled the adjustment of profits and losses in speculative transactions under section 10. Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the assessee and ordering them to pay costs of &8377; 250.
|
