STANDARD REFINERY & DISTILLERY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1585/1968Supreme Court[1971] 3 S.C.R. 37818 January 1971Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER STANDARD REFINERY5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Standard Refinery & Distillery Ltd., owned a distillery and refinery. In 1945, it leased a sugar factory and, between January and April 1946, purchased approximately 41,000 shares of the lessor company. In April 1947, the assessee sold these shares, incurring a loss of Rs. 3,70,356/-. This loss was treated as a trading loss for the assessment year 1948-49. After setting off against other income, an unabsorbed loss of Rs. 2,27,085/- was carried forward to assessment year 1949-50. The assessee claimed to set off this share business loss against profits from its sugar business for AY 1949-50. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal denied this set-off. The High Court upheld their decision. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case, as the initial statement was incomplete. The Tribunal subsequently provided further facts.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the business of dealing in shares and the business of manufacturing sugar constituted the 'same business' within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court applied the tests laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd., which stated that inter-connection, interlacing, interdependence, and unity are furnished by the existence of common management, common business organization, common administration, common fund, and a common place of business. The Tribunal's supplementary findings confirmed the existence of these factors: a single trading and profit and loss account, a common organization dealing with both share transactions and other businesses, utilization of a common fund, and carrying on business in the same place. The Court found these objective tests to be decisive, overriding the Revenue's argument about separability and lack of dovetailing. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's answer was discharged, with the reframed question answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the business of dealing in shares and the business of manufacturing sugar and other commodities constitute the same business within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the share transaction should be considered part of its overall business, and the loss incurred should be set off against profits from its sugar business. The Tribunal's supplementary findings, indicating a single trading and profit and loss account, common organization, utilization of common funds, and carrying on business in the same place, supported this view. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the share transaction was easily separable from the other businesses and lacked inter-connection, interlacing, interdependence, and unity. They relied on the principle from Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd. that businesses must be "easily separable" and have a "dovetailing" to be considered the "same business."

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(2),Section 66(2),Section 66(A)(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

378 STANDARD REFINERY & DISTILLERY LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX:, CALCUTTA January 18, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 22(4)-'Same busines.', tests for.

The assessee owned a distillery and a refinery. In 1945, it obtained on lease the sugar factory belonging to another .company, and during the period from January to April 1946, it purchased about 41,000 shares of the lessor company, and in April 1947, sold the entire block of shares.

The transa~tion resulted in a loss.

After setting off the loss against the other income ·for the assessment year 1948-49, the unabsorbed loss was carried forward under s. ·24(2) of the Income.tax Act, 1922, to the assess- ment year 1949-SO. But the assessee's claim to set off the loss pertaining to the sha;re business against the profits in th~ sugar business was negatived by the Department, the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

In appeal to this Court, this Court reframed the question referred to the High Court as 'whether the business of dealing in shares and the busi- ness of manufacturing sugar etc. constituted the same. l>usinc'Ss within the meaning of s. 24(2/'Qf the Act,' and

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(2)

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →