THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN vs. M/S. NATIONAL FINANCE LTD.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable. It distinguished the present case from Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar by noting that the High Court's order related to the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on limitation, which was not the subject of the present appeal. Special circumstances, including a clerical error leading to the one-day delay in filing the reference application, justified the grant of special leave. Regarding the nature of the loss, the Court held that the transaction was on the capital side. The acquisition of shares by Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. was a device, and the controlling interest was ultimately acquired by the assessee company for its benefit, representing an acquisition of an interest of an enduring nature. The shares were never treated as stock-in-trade and were not sold in the market. Therefore, the loss was a capital loss, not a trading loss. The appeal was allowed with costs on the respondent.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. National Finance Ltd., a company dealing in shares and securities, sold shares of Madhusudan Mills Ltd. in the assessment year 1951-52, incurring a loss. The Income-tax Officer found that these shares were acquired by J, another group company, at a price significantly higher than the market value, with the intention of removing sellers from their managing agency and securing the purchasing and selling agency for the assessee. The shares eventually came into the possession of the assessee and were sold at a loss to another group company. The Income-tax Officer treated the loss as capital loss, disallowing set-off. The Appellate Tribunal reversed this, holding in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner's application for reference to the High Court was dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred by one day. The High Court also dismissed the Commissioner's application. The Commissioner then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is maintainable, bypassing the High Court's order, and if so, whether special circumstances justify granting special leave to appeal. - Assessee's contention: The appeal is not maintainable as it bypasses the High Court's decision, citing Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar. - Revenue's contention: The appeal is maintainable due to special circumstances, relying on Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. Whether the loss incurred by the assessee on the sale of shares of Madhusudan Mills Ltd. constitutes a trading loss or a capital loss. - Assessee's contention: The loss is a trading loss, as the shares were part of its stock-in-trade. The assessee relied on the principle of separate legal entities for companies, citing Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd., arguing that the intention of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. could not be attributed to National Finance Ltd. - Revenue's contention: The loss is a capital loss. The acquisition of shares was not as stock-in-trade but to acquire a capital asset of an enduring nature, namely, lucrative agencies. The interposition of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. was a mere device, and the controlling interest was acquired for the benefit of the assessee company.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 66(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2 9.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI Al\fD RAJASTHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL FH{ANCE LTD. 865 (S.K. DAs, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Income Taa:-OapUal WBB or trading /,ass-Dealer in sparea-Acquisition . of shares tc get agency of company -Sublequent sale of share& incurring loas-Whetlier trading loss -Application to Tribunal dismissed as ba"ed by limitati01&- Reference to High Court dismissed-Appeal by Special Leave against Trtbunal's decision-Maintainability.
The respondent was a company dealing in . shares and securities and belonged to a group of companies all controlled by the same persons. In the year of account, corresponding to the assessment year 1951-52, the respondent sold the shares relating to Madhusudan Mills Ltd., which it had acquired sometime earlier, suffering a loss for which it claimed a set-off against the profits in that year.
The Income-tax Officer found that the shares in question had been purchased by J, a company belonging to the group, at a price which wa1 almost double the current market price, that it was so done with a view to removing the sellers from their managing agency and to securing for
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
