9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss, its losses were to be examined for the said purpose. The Tribunal while come to the said conclusion, has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of CIT vs. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad (1968 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) as also the similar principles set out by the Bombay High Court in the case of AR Mahadevia vs CIT (1967 (3) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court). The appellant is not able to provide any contrary decisions. In our opinion, the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on material facts and is supported by the decisions aforesaid, hence need no interference by this Court. - Income Tax Appeal No. 278 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome from ₹ 2,17,46,489/- to ₹ 3,84,09,932/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeal), the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who vide order dated 06.06.2013 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and has directed the Assessing Authority to allow set off from non-speculative business against profit from speculative business. 7. The present appeal has been filed by the Department/the Commissioner of the Income Tax by which the impugned judgment and order of the ITAT dated 06.06.2013 has been challenged. 8. Following substantial questions of law are referred for consideration before this Court; I. Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that non-speculative busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'profit and gains, if any, of any business or profession' carried on by assessee and assessable in that assessment year, and when it cannot be so set off, it shall be carried forward to the following assessment year. 12. The Tribunal has dealt with the aforesaid submission of the department and has categorically held that the expression ''any'' business clearly includes of business without making distinct in between the speculative and non-speculative business, and therefore, going by the plain language of the statutory provision loss in a business, other than non-speculative business, cannot be set off against profit of speculative business as also non-speculative business. 13. The Tribunal has also considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into account except to the extent of the amount of profits and gains, if any, in any other business consisting of speculative transaction . Elaborating upon the scope of this statutory provision Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad (71 ITR 296) observed as follows: The answer to the question referred to the High Court obviously depends on the interpretation of the second proviso 24(1) of the Act in interpreting this provision, the purpose of Section 24(1) and (2) has to be kept in view. Under the Act, the Income Tax Officer has to determine the total income of an assessee under Section 23(1), (3) or (4) of the Act. In determining this total income, income under all the various heads enumerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on relates to income from business consisting of speculative transactions, and places the limitation that losses sustained in speculative transactions are not to be taken into account in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head Profits and Gains of business, profession or vocation , except to the extent that they will be set off against profits and gains in any other business which itself consists of speculative transaction. The effect of the proviso is that if there are profits in speculative business, those profits are added to income under the other heads mentioned in section 6 for purpose of computing the total income of the assessee in order to determine the tax under Section 23 of the Act on the other hand losses in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
