THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CHUNI LAL MOONGA RAM

CIVIL APPEAL No. 39/1960Supreme Court[1962] 2 S.C.R. 82305 May 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS10 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Chuni Lal Moonga Ram, a firm based in Delhi, was engaged in a speculative bullion business. For the assessment year 1946-47, it was assessed for income-tax and excess profits tax. During the relevant periods, the firm entered into forward "hedge" transactions in bullion at Bhatinda, which was then outside the taxable territories of British India. The firm incurred losses of Rs. 6,366/- and Rs. 16,615/- in these transactions and claimed them as deductions. The Income-tax authorities disallowed the deduction, citing provisions related to exempt profits. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, reasoning that transactions could not be split and that even if they could, Section 42 of the Income-tax Act would deem the income to have arisen in British India. The Commissioner appealed to the High Court, which directed the Tribunal to state a case on specific questions of law. The High Court answered these questions in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1960 (Excess Profits Tax) and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1960 (Income-tax). Regarding the first question (Income-tax), the Court noted that the Additional Solicitor-General conceded he could not dispute the High Court's answer in view of a previous Supreme Court decision, thus dismissing the appeal related to income-tax. For the second question (Excess Profits Tax), the Court held that under the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, the part of the business where losses occurred at Bhatinda was to be deemed a separate business. This proviso was one of exclusion, making the Act inapplicable to profits arising in non-taxable territories. Consequently, losses incurred in such a separate business could not be taken into account for the purposes of Excess Profits Tax. The Court found that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, and that it did answer the question against the assessee. The Court also noted that the Tribunal did not consider the impact of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, on the assessment of excess profits tax. The operative direction was to allow the appeal concerning Excess Profits Tax, meaning the losses were not allowable for that tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the claim of loss in this case is governed by Section 10(1) or Section 24(1) proviso read with Section 14(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, or by the provisions of Section 42 of the Income-tax Act, 1922? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts of the case, a loss of Rs. 22,981/- is allowable in computing the income of the assessee chargeable to the Excess Profits Tax? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions (as inferred from Tribunal's reasoning and High Court's decision): The assessee contended that the transactions could not be split into those within and outside taxable territories. Even if splitting was permissible, Section 42 of the Income-tax Act would deem income from Bhatinda transactions to have accrued or arisen in British India, making the losses deductible. The proviso to Section 24(1) was not applicable. Revenue's Contentions (as inferred from Income-tax authorities' actions and Supreme Court's analysis): The revenue contended that if Bhatinda transactions had resulted in profits, such profits would have been exempt from tax under Section 14(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Consequently, the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act barred the adjustment of losses. For Excess Profits Tax, the revenue argued that under the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, the part of the business in Bhatinda should be deemed a separate business, and losses from it could not be considered for Excess Profits Tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5,Section 10(1),Section 14(2)(c),Section 24(1),Section 42,Section 66A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 823 'l'HE COl\IMltl~fONEH OF INCOME-TAX NEW DELHI ·v. l\1/s. CHUNI LAL MOONGA HAM (~. K. DAs, l\L HU>AYATULLAH and J.C. :-lHAH, JJ.) E'.r,ce88 /'1'1.!fif.., 1'a .. r--lnco1ne-.A .. .,~esseecarryinr1 on. business in fr1,xab1c lcrri'.!01·11- -Lu8SC'i t'.ncurred tn transactionsin nun- fftxaf)Tr frl'ifor!J -Jj af[,;1oalife in coniputing income-b'xcess l'n!(ils Tax .!cl, 19 IO (1.5 nf 1940), s. 5. 1Juri11g the a.sSC!:is111cut yedr 1946-·17, the asse!:isee \Vas carryin.~ OH speculath·e \Jusiness in bullion at Delhi. It en- tered into transaction:-; in the nature of forward transactions with parties al Bhatinda (in the Patiala State outside the taxable territories uf llriti'!t India) in which it suffered losses.

The assessee clain1c<l tlc<luctiou of these losses in the computation of its inco1ne. 11 cld, that the losses incurred in llhatinda could not be taken into acc.:uunt in co1nputing the incotne of the assessee in British Indi;t.

Uu<ler the third proviso to s. 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, that part of the business of the assessee in which the losses occurred at Bhatinda was to be deemed to be a separate business, and

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 5

All 810 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →