M.S.P NADAR SONS, VIRUDHU NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4851/1990Supreme Court[1993] 3 S.C.R. 44628 April 1993Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N. VENKATACHALA B M.S.P. NADAR SONS, VIRUDHU NAGAR8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M.S.P. Nadar Sons, a registered firm, is challenging an assessment for the year 1973-74. During the financial year 1972-73, the assessee sold shares, realizing a long-term capital gain of Rs. 5,61,508 from three companies and incurring a long-term capital loss of Rs. 96,583 from six other companies. The assessee computed the capital gains after deductions under Section 80-T. The Income-Tax Officer, however, set off the loss against the gain first and then applied the deductions. This led to a higher capital gain being included in the total income. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The Revenue appealed to the High Court, which answered the reference in favor of the Revenue, holding that capital gains are a separate head of income and losses are to be set off against gains before deductions under Section 80-T.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that the deductions provided by Section 80-T are to be applied to the net "capital gains" arising from the sale of long-term capital assets, which means profits derived minus losses suffered during the relevant previous year. It is not possible to treat the transfer of each asset separately and apply the deductions individually. The Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning that capital gains constitute a separate head of income and that Section 70(2)(ii) prescribes the manner of setting off losses. The Court also noted that this was not a case involving two types of capital assets as mentioned in Section 80-T(b)(i) and (ii), but only shares (falling under sub-clause (ii)). The Court distinguished the reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Madras v. Canara Workshops Private Limited, 161 I.T.R. 320, stating it was based on the language of a different provision (Section 80-E).

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessable capital gain would be only Rs. 1,81,671, computed in the manner set out in paragraph 14 of the order of the tribunal? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 70(2)(ii) and 80-T of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Capital gains must be computed in respect of each asset separately. Section 80-T prescribes different percentages of deduction for different types of capital assets, necessitating separate computation before setting off losses. The correct method is to compute capital gains for each asset separately according to Section 80-T before setting off losses. Revenue's contentions: Capital gains constitute a separate head of income. Capital gains are bifurcated into long-term and short-term. Section 70(2)(ii) prescribes the manner in which a loss from the sale of a long-term capital asset is to be set off against income from any other capital asset. Relied on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sigappi Achi, 140 I.T.R. 448.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 70(2)(ii),Section 80-T,Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B M.S.P. NADAR SONS, VIRUDHU NAGAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), MADRAS APPRIL 28, '1993 [B.P.JEEVANREDDY ANON. VENK.ATACHALA,JJ.] Income Tax Act 1961: Sections 70 (2) (ii) and 80T-Assessee- Selling shares held in companies-wng term capital gain as well as long term capital loss-Capital c gains-Computation of The appellant-assessee was a. Registered Firm. The assessment year concerned was 1973-74. During the relevant previous year being the financial year 1972-73, the assessee sold shares it held in several companies; from the sale in three companies it secured a gross long terms capital gain ofRs.5,61,508 D However, in the sale of shares in six other companies it sustained a long term capital loss in a sum of Rs. 96,583. The assessee computed the capital gains on these transactions of sale of shares less the deductions under Section 80-T(b) and Section SOT (b) (ii) (1) and showed a profit .,f Rs. 1,81,671. 00. E . F G The Income-Tax Officer did not agree wi!'• the mode of computation indicated by the asssessee; and set olfthe long :;.:rm capital loss against the long term capital gain in the first instance and then applied the deductions. prov

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →