RAJAPALAYAM MILLS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1989/1977Supreme Court[1979] 1 S.C.R. 113806 October 1978Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: P.N. BHAGWATI, V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK B18 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

Rajapalayam Mills Ltd., a public limited company, established a new industrial undertaking in the financial year ending March 31, 1959, relevant to assessment year 1959-60. For assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, depreciation and development rebate for this new unit were fully set off against the total profits of all the company's units, leaving no unabsorbed amounts for assessment year 1961-62. In assessment year 1961-62, the company reported a net business income of Rs. 12,69,403, including Rs. 1,36,822 from the new unit. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922, for 6% of the capital employed in the new unit. The Income Tax Officer rejected this claim, holding that the new unit incurred a loss when computed separately as per Section 15C(3), making exemption unavailable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially set aside the ITO's order, but the Tribunal restored it. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal. Similar views were taken for assessment year 1962-63. The appeals concern assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 15C(1) for assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. The Court reasoned that Section 15C is a provision to encourage economic growth and development by promoting new industrial undertakings. While profits of distinct businesses are computed separately, tax is levied on aggregate profits, allowing set-off of losses from one business against profits of another, as per Section 10 and Section 24(1). Proviso (b) to Section 10(vi) allows carried-forward depreciation only if it remains unabsorbed after being set off against total income. Similarly, development rebate is set off against total income. The Court found that in the present case, the entire depreciation allowance and development rebate for the past assessment years (1959-60 and 1960-61) were fully set off against the total income of the assessee for those years, leaving no unabsorbed amounts to be carried forward to assessment year 1961-62. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 15C(1), the profits of the new industrial undertaking for assessment year 1961-62 were Rs. 1,36,822, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption. The Court noted that Section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is materially identical to Section 15C of the 1922 Act, and the same reasoning applies. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 15C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62, when the profits of the new industrial undertaking, computed in accordance with Section 15C(3) without reference to other activities, show a loss, even though the total income of the assessee was sufficient to absorb depreciation and development rebate from the new unit in prior years. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that Section 15C is intended to encourage new industrial undertakings and that the exemption should be available if the total income of the assessee is sufficient to absorb depreciation and development rebate. They contended that the computation under Section 15C(3) does not create a legal fiction isolating the new unit's profits retrospectively and that unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate from previous years, if any, should be considered. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued, and the High Court and Tribunal agreed, that Section 15C(3) requires the profits of the new unit to be computed independently. Since this computation showed a loss for the assessment year 1961-62, no exemption under Section 15C(1) was admissible. They relied on the plain language of Section 15C(3) and the principle that tax is chargeable on aggregate profits, but for the purpose of specific exemptions, separate computations might be necessary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 15C,Section 84,Section 10,Section 24(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B 1138 RAJAPALAYAM MILLS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS October 6, 1978 (P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] Income 1ax Act, 1922, Sec. 15C and Sec. 84 of Jnco111e Tax Act, 1~61, interpretation of.

The appellact assessee, a public limited company carrying on business in manufacture and sale of yarn, set up a new industrial undertaking during the financial year ending 31st March, 1959 being the accounting year relevant to C the assessment year 1959-60. The entire amount of depreciation and develop- ment rebate in respect of this new unit for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 were set off against the total profit of the assessee arising out of all units old and new, and therefore nothing remained unabsorbed to be carried forward to the next aesessment year 1961-62. In the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee earned a net business income of Rs. 12,69,403 /- which included a sum of Rs. 1,36,822/- representing the income from the new unit. The D assessee in its assessment to t.ax for this assessment year claimed exemption of the income from the new unit to the extent of 6% of the average capital employed in it under sect

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 10

All 582 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →