COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, ANDHRA PRADESH vs. THE COCANADA BANK LTD. KAKINADA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 155/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 61902 April 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI COMMISSIONER OF7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Cocanada Bank Ltd., had income from banking business and interest on securities. For the assessment year 1949-50, it incurred a loss from its banking business which was set off against its income from interest on securities. For the subsequent three assessment years, the Income Tax Officer allowed the carried-forward loss to be set off only against income from banking business and disallowed it against income from interest on securities. This was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court remitted the case to the Tribunal for a finding on whether the securities formed part of the trading assets. The Tribunal found that the interest from securities was part of the assessee's business. The High Court then answered the reference in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is concerned with the business itself, not its specific heads of income under Section 6. The Court reasoned that while Section 6 classifies income for computation purposes, income from interest on securities does not cease to be part of business income if the securities are trading assets. The determination of whether income is part of business income should be based on commercial principles, not solely on the classification under Section 6. In this case, the Tribunal and High Court found the securities to be trading assets, making the interest income part of the business income. Consequently, the loss incurred in the business in an earlier year could be set off against this income in subsequent years under Section 24(2). The Court distinguished its earlier decisions in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, noting they were based on the distinct nature of capital gains, not on the exclusion of business-related income from the business head. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the assessee was entitled to set off the business loss against the entire income, including interest on securities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a loss incurred under the head 'business' can be carried forward and set off against income from interest on securities in subsequent years, when the securities form part of the trading assets of the business? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that even though income from securities and business were computed separately under Sections 8 and 10 respectively, if the securities were part of the trading assets, the income derived therefrom was part of the business income. Therefore, losses incurred under the head 'business' could be set off against the total business income, including income from securities, in subsequent years. The assessee relied on Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I v. Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 I.T.R. 17. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that income from business and securities fell under different, mutually exclusive heads (Sections 10 and 8 respectively). Therefore, losses under the head 'business' could not be carried forward and set off against income from securities under Section 24(2) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(2),Section 6,Section 8,Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME·TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH B c D E F a B v. THE COCANADA BANK LTD. KAKINADA April 2; 1965 [K. SUBllA RAO, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 24(2)-Carry-forward of loss-Loss under one head of income whether can be set-off against income under other heads in succeeding years-Heads of income whether mutually exclusive.

The respondent bank had income from banking business and interest on securities. For the assessment year 1949-50 its loss from banking business was set-off against the income from interest on securities but for the succeeding three years the income-tax officer st:. t• off the said loss which had been carried forward, only against the income from banking business and disallowed it against the income under the head 'interest on securities'. The view of the Income Tax Officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on further appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal however referred to the High Court, at the instance of the assessee, the ques- tion whether the assessee was entitled to set-off business loss brought forward from the preceding assessment y-ear agai

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 →