SETABGUNJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, CALCUTTA.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 143/1958Supreme Court[1961] 2 S.C.R. 48817 November 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Setabgunj Sugar Mills Ltd., incorporated in 1934, initially focused on sugar manufacturing. Its objects also included dealing in jute, gunnies, and oil seeds. For the accounting year ending August 31, 1947 (Assessment Year 1948-49), the company engaged in manufacturing and selling sugar, which resulted in a loss of Rs. 2,09,306. Concurrently, it conducted business in mustard seeds, gunnies, and hessian, generating profits of Rs. 6,14,018. The company sought to set off brought-forward business losses from previous years (Rs. 13,43,069) against these profits, arguing they pertained to the same business under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer assessed the company on Rs. 4,04,712. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the company's contention. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this, holding the activities were not the same business. The Tribunal declined to refer the matter to the High Court. The company then appealed to the High Court under Section 66(2), which summarily dismissed its application.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the question of whether different ventures carried on by an individual or a company constitute the same business is a mixed question of law and fact. It reiterated the principles laid down in Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd., emphasizing the need to ascertain interconnection, interlacing, interdependence, or unity among the ventures. The Court found that a question of law did arise concerning the application of Section 24(2) to the facts of the case. Specifically, the question was whether the company's activities (sugar manufacture/sale and dealing in gunnies, jute, mustard seeds) constituted the same business. The Court directed the High Court to call for a statement of the case from the Tribunal on this specific question of law and dispose of it accordingly. Regarding the appeal against the Tribunal's order directly, the Court expressed no opinion, noting that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had reached a contrary inference, indicating a potential legal issue. Consequently, this appeal was dismissed without costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the business activities of the company, specifically the manufacture and sale of sugar, and the sale and purchase of gunnies, jute, and mustard seeds, constituted the same business within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: - The various business activities of the company were part of the same business, thus allowing the set-off of brought-forward losses from the sugar business against profits from other ventures, as per Section 24(2). - The Tribunal's order was incorrect, and a question of law arose from it. Revenue's contentions: - The Tribunal correctly held that the different ventures of the company did not constitute the same business for the application of Section 24(2). - The High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the company's application under Section 66(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(2),Section 66(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961) '960 business and trade organised with the object of Th• Ahmedabad di~covering w~ys and means _by which the member- Textile Industry's ~mlls m~y obtam large~ profits m connection with their Research mdustrres. In these circumstances we have no hesi- Association tation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant- v. . association is carrying on an activity which clearly The State 01 comes within the definition of the word "industry" in Bombay &- Others 2( ') d h" h t b . .1 d _ s. J an w ic canno e ass1m1 ate to a purely wanchoo 1. educational institution. In this view of the matter, when a dispute arose between the appellant and some of its employees, it was an industrial dispute and could be properly referred for adjudication under the Act.

November r7. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with <me set of costs.

Appeal dismissed. SETABGUNJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, CALCUTTA. J. L. KAI'UR, M. HrnAYATUI,LAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.

Income Tax-Company having several activities-Set-off of loss in one, when can be claimed agait.sl profits in another-W he- ther activities consti

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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →