COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1119/1975Supreme Court[1989] 1 S.C.R. 63814 February 1989Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: M.H. KANIA, L.M. SHARMA B COMMISSIONER OF9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

For the assessment year 1959-60, the Income Tax Officer disallowed the respondent-assessee's claim for loss on the sale of shares in Bharat Starch & Chemicals Ltd. and Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. to an allied concern. The officer contended the sale price was significantly below market value and the motive was to set off losses against profits, deeming the transactions not genuine. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the losses were not business losses. The Tribunal, however, observed no evidence of control over the companies and found sales were at market rates, concluding the losses were not bogus and should be allowed as business losses. The Commissioner sought a reference to the High Court, which the Tribunal declined, deeming the questions not ones of law. The High Court confirmed this order, and the Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order confirming the Tribunal's refusal to refer the questions. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body and its conclusions on whether a loss is a trading loss or capital loss, and whether it is genuine or bogus, are primarily questions of fact. Interference by the court is only permissible if the Tribunal considered irrelevant material, failed to consider relevant material, or arrived at a perverse conclusion. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant circumstances, including the assessee's prior treatment as a dealer in shares, and had not relied on irrelevant material. The Court also held that it is not necessary for the Tribunal to explicitly state it considered the cumulative effect of circumstances; if the judgment demonstrates this, it is sufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision that the losses were business losses was not perverse and did not warrant interference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any evidence and had not relied on irrelevant or partly irrelevant materials in holding that the transactions entered into by the assessee in the purchase and sale of shares of Bharat Starch & Chemicals Ltd. and Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. were genuine commercial transactions and whether such finding was not otherwise unreasonable or perverse? 2. Without prejudice to Question No. (1), whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee entered into the transactions of purchase, and sale of 25000 shares of Bharat Starch & Chemicals Ltd. and 3000 shares of Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. in the course of its business as a dealer in shares was based on no evidence or was otherwise unreasonable or perverse? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal's findings, which the assessee would have supported, were that the transactions were genuine, at market rates, and the losses were business losses. Revenue's Contentions: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) argued that the Tribunal's findings were based on irrelevant or partly irrelevant materials, or lacked evidence, and were unreasonable or perverse. The Revenue sought to have the questions referred to the High Court for determination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA v. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD. FEBRUARY 14, 1989 [M.H. KANIA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] ·'r Constitution of India, 1950---Artic/e 136-Tribunal's decision on question of fact-Such a finding not to be interfered with unless it is ·--+··. based on irrelevant material or perverse. \ C Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 256-Reference io High Court- Question of fact or law-Assessee claiming loss on sale of shares- Whether capital loss, or business loss or genuine or bogus-Only ques- tion of fact-Tribunal's decision final-Tribunal need.not specifically state its taking into account the cumulative effect of the circum.i;tances- D Court not to interfere unless Tribunal's decision is based on irrelevant consideration or perverse.

For the assessment year 1959-60, the Income Tax Officer dis- ~ ' allowed the loss claimed by the Respondent-assessee, on the sale of E certain shares, to its allied concern, on the grounds that the sale price was much below the market quotation and that the motive behind the transactions was to set off the loss against the profits and hence the transactions w.ere not genuine. F G H On appeal by the ass

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

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →