THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB vs. THE LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 813/1963Supreme Court[1966] 2 S.C.R. 72025 November 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: A.K. SARKAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT THE COMMISSIONER OF12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lahore Electric Supply Co., was incorporated in 1912 to supply electricity. By 1942, all its electricity supply licenses, except for Lahore, had terminated or been disposed of. The Provincial Government acquired the Lahore undertaking in late 1942/early 1943, and the company delivered the undertaking and assets to the Government on September 5, 1946. A portion of the payment was due after asset valuation. The company possessed other assets not related to the Lahore undertaking, and all its funds were invested in securities and shares, which constituted its sole income after September 5, 1946. For assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, the company claimed deductions under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, asserting it carried on business. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Punjab High Court ruled in favor of the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision (Sarkar and Mudholkar JJ.), held that the company had not been carrying on business during the relevant accounting years. The Court reasoned that the facts indicated that since 1942, the company's only business was working the Lahore Electric Supply license, which ceased when the undertaking was taken over. Thereafter, it had not started any other business. The grounds relied upon by the Tribunal and High Court did not lead to the conclusion that the company intended to carry on business. The dissenting opinion (Bachawat J.) held that the company's activities, including investment in stocks, shares, and securities, constituted business activities, especially considering its subsidiary objects and the fact that the Revenue itself had treated gains from investment realization as business income. The majority decision allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee company had not ceased to carry on business during the relevant accounting period, is, in law, correct, turning on the interpretation of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's arguments: The company continued to carry on business. The Tribunal and High Court relied on facts including the company not selling its undertaking as a going concern, retaining other assets, holding consumer deposits, having no intention of liquidation, and considering new ventures. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the company had ceased to carry on business after the acquisition of its Lahore undertaking. The Additional Solicitor General abandoned the second question regarding the admissibility of expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

720 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB v. THE LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.

November 25, 1965 [A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] lncomt Tax Act 1922~. 10(2)(xv)-Whether company carried on business-Therefore whether entitled to deduction of expenses.

The assessee company carried on the business of supplying electricity to various cities under licences from the Government. All the licences, except one for the supply of electricity to the city of Lahore, were ter- minated or disposed of by 1942. Soon after that, the Provincial Gov- ernment acquired the company's undertaking for the supply of electricity in Lahore and part of the value for the acquisition remained due to be· paid to the company after the listing and valuation of the assets. The- company also possessed considerable assets not appertaining to the Lahore Electric Supply Undertaking and all its funds were invested in securities and shares, the income from which was the sole income after September 5, 1946. In its assessment to income-tax for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50, the company claimed deduction of various amounts under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the basi

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(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →