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

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1594/1968Supreme Court[1969] 3 S.C.R. 79620 February 1969Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER CHAND THAPAR8 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karam Chand Thapar Bros. (P) Ltd., was engaged in coal mining, a dry ice factory, and other businesses. The company obtained a prospecting license for a colliery, prospected for coal, and then sold it, realizing profits of Rs. 51,550 in the accounting year 1948-49 and Rs. 8,756 in 1949-50. The Income-tax Officer taxed these profits as business income. Separately, the company sold its Dry Ice Factory in September 1948. Possession was transferred in October 1948, but the price was finally settled in December 1949, resulting in a loss of Rs. 34,891 for the assessee. The assessee claimed this loss as a deduction for the assessment year 1950-51. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disallowed the deduction. The High Court upheld these decisions.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the prospecting and sale of the colliery constituted a business transaction. The Court reasoned that prospecting for coal was part of the assessee's coal mining business, and therefore, the profit arising from the sale, even if an isolated transaction, was in the nature of revenue and taxable. This affirmed the High Court's decision on the first two issues. Regarding the loss from the Dry Ice Factory, the Court found that while the sale occurred in 1948, the price settlement and thus the accrual of loss happened in December 1949, which fell within the accounting year 1949-50. Therefore, the loss was allowable as a deduction against the business income for that year under Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and not subject to the restrictions of Section 24(2) which applied to losses carried forward from a previous year where the business had ceased. The Court disagreed with the High Court's disallowance of the loss.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the sum of Rs. 51,550 was a profit in the nature of revenue and therefore liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the sum of Rs. 8,756 was a profit in the nature of revenue and was subject to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1950-51? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the loss of Rs. 34,891 was allowable as a deduction against the business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51? Assessee's contentions: - The profits from the sale of the colliery were gains of a capital nature and not liable to tax. - The loss from the Dry Ice Factory transaction was deductible from its income in the assessment year 1950-51. Revenue's contentions: - The profits from the sale of the colliery were in the nature of revenue and liable to tax. - The loss from the Dry Ice Factory was not deductible because the business had ceased before the relevant accounting year, and Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, was not applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(1),Section 24(2),Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

KARAM CHAND THAPAR Ii: BROS. (P) L1D. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL)· CALCUTTA February 20, 1969 [J. c. SHAH, v .. RAMA.SWAMI AND A. N. GROVl!R, JJ.) 8 Income Tax-Single transaction of salt resulting in profit-.,,lun such profit should be deemed to be revenue liable to tax-lncomt-tax A.•t (11 of 1922), •. 24(1) and (2)-Sale in one accounting year t:nd ••1111· ment of price in the succeeding year-Sale resulting in cessation al b&. ness and in loss-Assessment proceedings for th• latter Y•-lf Ion .., C allowable deduction under s. 24(1).

The assessee-company was carzying on the business of coal minin1· uol of a Dry Ice Factory, in addition to various other kinds of busineas, Jt obtained a prospecting licence, and after prospecting for coal sold it wit•- in a short time of its acquisition and thereby earned profits in the accoua- ting years 1948-49 and 1949-50. It sold the Ice Factory in 1948. Thoop the purchaser took possession of the ice factory in 1948, the price was )) finally settled in December 1949. By that sale the assesseo-compaay suffered a loss.

The assessee claimed : ( 1) that the profits were gains of a capital nature and hence not liable

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(1)

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →