BROOKE BOND & COMPANY LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BROOKE BOND LEIBIG LIMITED) vs. C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-II, CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2020/1974Supreme Court[1986] 3 S.C.R. 98030 September 1986Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI B13 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, a sterling company with UK head office, invested in shares of tea companies, including a 100% Indian subsidiary. For AY 1955-56, it was assessed on total world income as a resident, with provisional business loss and dividend income. For AY 1956-57, it was assessed as a non-resident, with dividend income taxed under 'Income from Other Sources'. The loss from 1955-56 could not be carried forward to 1956-57 as the latter assessment was made later. Revision applications were filed for both years. For 1955-56, the appellant sought revision of loss based on final figures and bifurcation of loss. For 1956-57, it claimed set-off of 1955-56 loss against dividend income, arguing shares were trading assets. Assessment for AY 1957-58 was completed as a non-resident, with dividend income. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) for AY 1957-58 claimed set-off of 1955-56 business loss against 1957-58 dividend income under Section 24(2), but was dismissed.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the orders of the Division Bench, Single Judge, and the Commissioner of Income Tax concerning the appellant's claim for the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for Assessment Year 1956-57. The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the revision application afresh on this specific claim. The Court clarified that it would be open to the Revenue to contend on merits that the appellant is not entitled to the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. Regarding the other reliefs sought by the appellant, the appeal was dismissed. The Court reasoned that while income-tax is a single charge, the statute classifies income under different heads for computation. The Court did not find sufficient material to support the claim that the Revenue had conceded dividend income as business income. It also held that the claim for carry forward of loss under Section 24(2) failed because it was predicated on the assumption that shares were trading assets, which was not accepted. The Court's primary intervention was to direct a fresh consideration of the unabsorbed depreciation claim, as the High Court had only expressed a tentative view and declined relief based on consequences for other assessment years, which was deemed incorrect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether dividend income from shares held by the appellant could be computed under the head 'Income from Business' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' for the purpose of set-off of business loss, particularly concerning Assessment Year 1956-57? 2. Whether the loss determined for Assessment Year 1955-56 could be carried forward and set off against the income of Assessment Year 1956-57 under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? 3. Whether unabsorbed depreciation from Assessment Year 1955-56 could be carried forward under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contentions: - Dividend income should be treated as business income as shares were trading assets (relied on commercial considerations). - Loss should be carried forward under Section 24(2) from AY 1955-56 to AY 1956-57, and the business in both years need not be identical. - Claim for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 10(2) should be allowed. - Commissioner of Income Tax had conceded in an earlier proceeding that dividend income was business income. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue on these issues, other than impliedly supporting the Commissioner's orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 6,Section 24(2),Section 33A,Section 10(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c BROOKE BOND & COMPANYLTO. (NOW KNOWN AS BROOKE BOND LEIBIG LIMITED) v. C.I.T., WEST BENGAL-II, CALCUTTA SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 [RS. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Indian Income Tax Act, 1922--Sections 6, 24(2) & 33A-Asses- see-Dividend income shown in return under head 'income from other sources'-Whether could be computed under head 'income from· ,business'.

The appellant, a sterling company carrying on business in tea D with its Head Office in the United Kingdom, invested in the shares of other tea companies in different parts of the world, and had a hundred per cent share holding in an Indian subsidiary. E F The appellant was assessed under the Indian Income Tax Act 1922. For the assessment year I955-56 the appellant was assessed on its total world income on the basis of provisional figures of its business loss including depreciation, and its income from individuals. As its Indian income exceeded its income outside India it was assessed as a resident.

Meanwhile the appellant had already been assessed for the subsequent assessment year 1956-57 in the status of a 'non-resident' and its income from dividends was assessed under the head 'Income from

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 6

All 333 judgments and leading authorities on Section 6 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →