SK. AR. K. AR. SOMASUNDRAM CHETTIAR AND CO. MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1109/1976Supreme Court[1992] 1 S.C.R. 4915 January 1992Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY SK. AR. K. AR. SOMASUNDRAM8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, S.K. Ar. K. Ar. Somasundaram Chettiar and Co., a registered firm, was assessed for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Income Tax Officer determined losses of Rs. 2,04,746 and Rs. 17,000 respectively as speculative business losses, which could only be set off against speculation profits. The assessee's initial appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed, but a further appeal was upheld. The assessee conceded that the transactions were speculative but argued they were saved by clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal initially agreed, finding them to be hedging contracts. The Revenue obtained a reference to the High Court, which overturned the Tribunal's decision, holding the transactions were not saved by clause (a). The assessee appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that for clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24 to apply, a contract in respect of merchandise must be entered into by a merchant in the course of business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations specifically in respect of their contracts for actual delivery of goods sold by them. The Court clarified that while a direct contract-to-contract correlation might not be necessary, there must be a correlation between the speculative contract and the contract for actual delivery of goods sold by the assessee. The Court found that the assessee's transactions, which involved entering into purchase contracts with mills, sale contracts with another party, and then re-purchase contracts with the same party, settling the difference, and finally taking delivery and selling to third parties, did not satisfy this requirement. The Court reasoned that the words 'for actual delivery of goods' were intentionally included and that an interpretation including contracts of purchase would be inconsistent with the scheme of the clause. Therefore, the transactions were not saved by clause (a).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the transactions resulting in losses of Rs. 2,04,746 for assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 17,000 for assessment year 1961-62 were saved from being treated as speculative transactions by clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The assessee conceded that the transactions were speculative within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24. However, it argued that these transactions were saved under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, as they were entered into in the course of its merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of its contracts for actual delivery of goods sold by it. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the transactions did not meet the requirements of clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1), as they were not entered into to guard against loss in respect of actual delivery contracts of goods sold by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24,Section 24(1),Section 66(1),Section 43(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

. SK. AR. K. AR. SOMASUNDRAM CHETI'IAR AND CO .• MADURAI A v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MADRAS JANUARY 15. 1992 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 24, third proviso, clause (a)-Require- ments under-Contract--Constructi_o,._contract spoken in first part and in second part--Co-relatio~When the clause applies to speculative transac- tion, indicated.

Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 24, third proviso, clause (a}-Transac- tions entered into by assessee whether saved under. c The appellant-assessee, was a registered firm. It was carrying on business in cloth and yarn. Its cloth business consisted mainly in Gada manufactured by certain Mills. D The Income Tax Officer while making the assessment relating to the assessment years of 1960-61 and 1961-62, held that the losses of Rs. 2,04,746 and Rs. 17,000 respectively sustained by the assessee in the two assessment years constituted losses in speculative transactions in the nature of business and, therefore, could not be set off except against E profits from speculation. He carried forward the said loss to be set off against speculation profits, if any, in subsequent assessment years.

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 24

All 696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →