9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1959 (2) TMI 1 - SC - Income TaxWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the loss of ₹ 27,709 arising in Cochin State could be set off against the profit of ₹ 38,998 arising in Travancore State ? Held that - The question referred to the High Court which is common to the two appeals was rightly answered in favour of the assessee. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether business losses incurred in the erstwhile State of Cochin could be set off against the business profits made in the erstwhile State of Travancore under the Travancore Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the year ending June 30, 1949, was the previous year for the assessment year 1950-51 for one of the assessees, thereby necessitating assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Set-off of Business Losses Across Different States: The primary issue in both appeals was the applicability of section 32(1) and the first proviso to that section of the Travancore Income-tax Act, which corresponds to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The question was whether business losses incurred in Cochin could be set off against profits made in Travancore. - Case Backgrounds: - In C.A. No. 259/58, the assessee, a public limited company, filed an income-tax return showing an income of Rs. 11,872 for the assessment year 1948-49. The Income-tax Officer refused to deduct losses incurred outside Travancore, amounting to Rs. 79,275. - In C.A. No. 260/58, the assessee, a private limited company, sought to deduct a loss of Rs. 27,709 incurred in Cochin from a profit of Rs. 38,998 made in Travancore. - High Court's Decision: The High Court of Travancore-Cochin answered the question in favor of the assessees in both cases, allowing the set-off of losses incurred outside Travancore against profits made within Travancore. - Supreme Court's Analysis: The Court examined the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act, which was similar to the Travancore Act. It noted that the proviso to section 24(1) of the Indian Act (and correspondingly section 32(1) of the Travancore Act) should be construed to carve out an exception to the main enactment, not to enlarge its scope. The Court emphasized that the proviso should not be interpreted to modify the method of computation under section 10 of the Indian Act. The Court referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax and this Court's decision in Anglo-French Textiles Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which clarified that section 24(1) was meant for setting off losses under different heads, not within the same head. The Court also discussed the legislative history and amendments to the Indian Income-tax Act, particularly the introduction of the "total world income" concept in 1939 and the exemption provided in 1941 for income arising in Indian States but not brought into British India. The Court concluded that the proviso to section 24(1) did not restrict the set-off of losses incurred in Indian States against profits made in British India or vice versa. Therefore, the High Court's decision in favor of the assessees was upheld. 2. Assessment Year for C.A. No. 260/58: The second issue in C.A. No. 260/58 was whether the year ending June 30, 1949, was the previous year for the assessment year 1950-51, necessitating assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. - High Court's Decision: The High Court did not address this question, focusing solely on the first issue. - Supreme Court's Observation: The Supreme Court did not provide a ruling on this issue, stating that it would be open to the assessee to take appropriate steps regarding this question as advised. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, upholding the High Court's decision that business losses incurred in Cochin could be set off against profits made in Travancore under the Travancore Income-tax Act. The Court did not address the second issue related to the assessment year for C.A. No. 260/58, leaving it open for further action by the assessee. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
