9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss sustained by the assessee can be carried forward to the next year for being set off. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the loss sustained by the assessee can be carried forward to the next year for being set off: The case revolves around the assessee, a private limited company, which filed its income-tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 showing a loss of Rs. 93,585. The company was incorporated on 19-3-1986, and its accounts were closed for the first time on 31-12-1986. The company's primary activities included management and financial consultancy, and it had invested in shares and other securities. The company borrowed funds to make these investments but did not earn any dividend income or receipts from consultancy services offered. The gross interest payable on borrowings was Rs. 87,641.15, and the net amount after TDS was Rs. 70,113.18. The Assessing Officer computed the total loss at Rs. 89,010 but refused to carry forward the loss as it was accrued under the head "Income from other sources." The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (A), arguing that the loss should be treated as a business loss and allowed to be carried forward. The Commissioner (A) rejected this contention, stating that there was no income from dividends, no receipts from consultancy, and no evidence of business activity. The Commissioner (A) held that the interest payment could not be capitalized or carried forward and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the assessee contended that the Commissioner (A) erred in disallowing the business loss of Rs. 87,642 from being carried forward, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519. The assessee's counsel argued that the borrowed monies for investment in shares should be considered business expenditure and allowed as a deduction, referencing India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 415. However, the Tribunal found these arguments irrelevant to the main issue of whether the loss could be carried forward. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents (P.) Ltd [1980] 125 ITR 227, which held that income from investments should be classified under "Other sources" and not as business income. The Tribunal also considered the general principles and special provisions under section 36(1)(iii) regarding the deduction of interest on borrowed capital for business purposes. The Tribunal concluded that while interest on borrowed amounts for investment in shares is allowable under section 36(1)(iii), the loss sustained cannot be carried forward under section 72(1) unless it is a loss under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." The Tribunal emphasized that section 72(1) requires the loss to be sustained under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and not under any other head. Since the dividend income from the shares would be classified under "Other sources," the loss cannot be carried forward. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) to support this view. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, denying the set-off relief and dismissing the appeal. The loss sustained by the assessee could not be carried forward as it was not incurred under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession."
|
