Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 420401 to 420402 of 420402 Records

• 1800 (1) TMI 2
  
  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.

  ---

• 1800 (1) TMI 1
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit pending the Land Tribunal's decision on tenancy.
  2. Acquiescence of defendants in the proceedings.
  3. Application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge:
  The primary question before the court was whether the Civil Judge was competent to dispose of the suit pending the receipt of a finding regarding tenancy from the Land Tribunal. The court noted that the learned Civil Judge passed no orders on I.A.10, which sought to revoke the stay and decide the suit directly. The court emphasized that without vacating the stay or recalling the reference made to the Tribunal, the Civil Judge could not have proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits. The court held that as long as the stay was current and operative, the Civil Judge had become functus officio for the time being and was disabled from disposing of the suit on its merits. The court concluded that the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge were non est, as they were made without jurisdiction.
  
  Acquiescence of Defendants:
  The court addressed the argument that the defendants, by leading evidence without objecting to the proceedings, had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and were now debarred from challenging the judgment. The court rejected this argument, stating that acquiescence cannot validate an order that is a nullity. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in KIRAN SINGH & OTHERS v. PASWAN AND OTHERS, emphasizing that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced. The court held that the defendants' passive participation did not amount to acquiescence that could preclude them from challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.
  
  Application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961:
  The court examined the application of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which allows the court to dispose of matters other than those remitted to the Tribunal. The court noted that the issue of tenancy was central to the dispute and had been remitted to the Tribunal for a decision. The court held that the Civil Judge could not have disposed of the suit without a finding on the issue remitted to the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the Civil Judge's action in disposing of the suit without waiting for the Tribunal's finding was illegal and exceeded its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the judgment and decree pertaining to the suit items 1 and 2 were unsupportable and had to be vacated.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the appeal in part, vacating the decree against defendants 1 and 2 regarding suit items 1 and 3. This part of the suit, which is severable, will have to be disposed of afresh by the lower court after the Tribunal reaches its findings on the issue referred to it. The decree regarding item No. 2 was affirmed, as it was not specifically claimed by the contesting defendants to be tenanted property and was not comprised within the reference made by the court to the Tribunal. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this court. The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

  ---

1 ....2101721018210192102021021