PRODUCE EXCHANGE CORPORATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2538/1966Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 38227 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER PRODUCE EXCHANGE CORPORATION LTD.6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd., a public limited company dealing in diverse commodities and also in stocks and shares, suffered a loss of Rs. 3,71,700 in the sale of shares of public limited companies during the year of account 1949. For the assessment year 1950-51, the Income-tax Officer declined to set off this loss against the company's business income, viewing the share transactions as a distinct business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, stating that the nature of the business was the main factor. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, finding unity of control and considering shares as one of the commodities dealt with in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal directed the loss to be set off. The High Court, following its previous judgment, held that the nature of the commodities was the essential factor, not unity of control or management, and thus erred in the Tribunal's decision. The appeals were filed against the High Court's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to the set-off of the loss. The Court applied the test laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Prithvi Insurance Company Ltd., which in turn relied on Scales v. George Thompson & Co. This test ascertains if there is any interconnection, interlacing, interdependence, or unity embracing the two businesses. Applying this test, the Court found that in the present case, there was common management of the share and stock business and other lines of business, unity of trading organization, common employees, common administration, a common fund, and a common place of business. Therefore, the share business and other businesses carried on by the appellant company constituted the same business within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood before the 1955 amendment. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the nature of the two businesses was the decisive test. The appeals were allowed, and the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to pay the costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business activities of the company, namely, dealings in shares and its dealings in other commodities and selling agency on a commission basis, constituted the same business within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (as in force at the relevant time)? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the loss from share transactions should be set off against other business income, as the share business and other businesses constituted the 'same business' under Section 24(2). The Tribunal's finding of unity of control and shares being part of the company's regular dealings supported this. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Prithvi Insurance Company Ltd. and Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner, contended that the share business was distinct from the business in other commodities, and therefore, the loss could not be set off. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the nature of the commodities as the decisive factor, citing Shree Ramesh Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(2),Section 66(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

J82 PRODUCE EXCHANGE CORPORATION LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX April 27, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ] Indian Income-tax Act, (II of 1922) s. 24(2) Loss sufjered-C/aun or set off by the assessee fro1n its income-Whether assessee entitled-"Sa1ne A, B business", tests · C The assessee was a public limiiei!'company doing business as a ·dealer in diverse commodities and also in stocks and shares.

In the year of account 1949 the company suffered loss in the sale of shares of public limited companies.

In proceedings for assessment 'for the year 1950-51 the Income-tax Officer declined to take into account the loss suffered. D In his view if the loss be taken as a tr.ading loss it could not be set off against the business income of the assessee because the Joss resulted· from transactions in shares which constituted a busi·ness distinct from the busi- ness in other commodities.

On the question whether the loss could be taken into. account and the set off given under ·s. 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in force in the year of assessment; this Court, E HELD : The assessee was entitled to the set off.

Section 24(2) of the I

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 →