COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. CHUGANDAS AND CO., BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 685/1963Supreme Court[1964] 8 S.C.R. 33229 July 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent, a firm dealing in securities, received interest on securities in the accounting years 1946 and 1947 (assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49). The firm discontinued its business on June 30, 1947. For the assessment year 1948-49, it claimed exemption from tax under Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arguing that tax had been charged on its business under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, holding that the interest income fell under Section 8 ('interest on securities') and not Section 10 ('profits and gains of business'). The Appellate Tribunal reversed this, and the High Court, by a majority, affirmed the Tribunal's order. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is intended to provide exemption from tax upon the discontinuance of a business where tax was charged on that business under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. The Court clarified that the section refers to tax charged on the owner of the business in respect of all income earned by carrying on that business. There is no reason to restrict the exemption only to income taxed under Section 10. The interest on securities, in this case, was derived from securities held as stock-in-trade by the firm, which was a dealer in securities. Therefore, this interest constituted income of the business. The Court distinguished this from situations involving capital gains, which are treated as 'deemed income' and not actual profits of the business. The ratio is that Section 25(3) exemption applies to all income of the business, including interest on securities if they are part of the business's stock-in-trade and tax was charged on the business under the 1918 Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of interest on securities, when the business was discontinued. The Assessee contended that Section 25(3) applies to all income of the business, including interest on securities, if tax was charged on the business under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. They argued that the interest on securities was part of their stock-in-trade and thus integral to their business profits. The Revenue contended that the exemption under Section 25(3) is limited to income falling under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' (Section 10) and does not extend to income from 'interest on securities' (Section 8), as these are distinct heads of income. They relied on the principle that a legal fiction is limited to its purpose and should not be extended.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(3),Section 8,Section 10,Section 66(1),Section 24(2A),Section 24(2B),Section 26(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- """· 29 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY v. CHUGANDAS AND CO., BOMBAY (K. SUBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.)

Indian Income·tax Act (XI of 1922), 1. 25(3)-Ex•mption applicable to wllot incom1. The respondent was a firm dealing in oecuritiea and was charaed to lncome·tax under the Income-tax Act (VII of 1918). It rea:ived certain IUDla of money as interest on securitiea in the accounting years 19-46 and 1947 (assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49) respectively It cl;.. continued its business on 30th June 1947, and, for the assessment )'l&r 1948-49. claimed exemption from taxation under s. 25(3) of the Inoome- tax Act (XI of 1922).

The income-tax officer and the Appel:ate Assistant Commissioner, held that, the income fell under the hel4 .. interest on securities'' under s. 8 and not under the bead "profits and 1ains of business, profession or vocation'' under s. 10 and that therefore, !be respondent was not entitled to the exemption. The Appellate Tn1>Unal reversed that order and the High Court (by a majority) coofirme4 the order of the Tnl>unal. The Commissioner of Income-tu appealed to the Supreme Court.

Hild: The appeal sho

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 8

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 8 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →