COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD· vs. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND LTD., AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 307/1958Supreme Court[1960] 3 S.C.R. 72728 April 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the third proviso to Section 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, did not exclude the Baroda business from the Act's applicability. Instead, it merely exempted the income, profits, or gains of that business unless they were received or deemed to be received in or brought into British India. The Court reasoned that the proviso's language, when read in context, indicated an exemption of income rather than an exclusion of the business unit itself. The primary unit of taxation was the business, and the first and second provisos to Section 5 explicitly referred to businesses. The third proviso, however, did not exclude a business but rather its income, profits, or gains. The Court found no insurmountable difficulty in applying the Act's provisions regarding capital computation or relief for deficiency of profits, as suggested by the appellant. Therefore, the High Court correctly answered the question of law in favour of the assessee, allowing the deduction of losses from the Baroda business against profits in British India. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karamchand Premchand Ltd., operated a managing agency business in British India and a pharmaceutical business in Baroda State. For the chargeable accounting periods between April 1, 1946, and March 31, 1949, the British India business yielded profits taxable under the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, while the Baroda business incurred a loss. The assessee sought to deduct the Baroda business loss from its British India profits. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, holding the Act did not apply to the Baroda business unless profits were received in British India. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, however, restored the Income-tax Officer's order, interpreting a proviso to Section 5 of the Act as excluding Baroda business losses unless received in British India. The assessee referred the matter to the Bombay High Court, which answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss suffered by the assessee in the business of Sarabhai Chemicals (Baroda business) should be deducted in computing the business income of the assessee company liable to business profits tax? This question turns on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, specifically its third proviso. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the third proviso to Section 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, did not exclude the Baroda business entirely from the Act's purview. Instead, it merely exempted the income, profits, or gains of that business unless they were received or brought into British India. Therefore, losses incurred in the Baroda business could be set off against profits from the British India business. The High Court's construction, which allowed for the deduction of losses, was correct. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant (Commissioner of Income-tax) contended that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Act. The revenue argued that the proviso, by stating "the Act shall not apply" to such businesses, effectively excluded the Baroda business from the scope of the Act, thus precluding the set-off of its losses against profits in British India. The language of this proviso was distinct from Section 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and its effect was not merely one of exemption but of exclusion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5,Section 6,Section 14(2)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

--· . ) '· 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 727 arbitration they did not anticipate the complications which have subsequently arisen. That is why an arbitration agreement may have been introduced in the contract in question. All these facts have been considered by both the courts, and though it is true that in their approach and final decisions in respect of these facts the two courts have differed in material particula1:s, they have in the result agreed with the conclusion that the discretion vested in them should be exercised in not granting stay as claimed by the appellant. Under these circumstances we do not think we would be justified in substituting our discretion for that of the courts below. It may be that if we were trying the appellant's application under s. 34 we might have come to a different conclusion; and also that we may have hesitated to confirm the order of the tnal court if we had been dealing with the matter as a court of first appeal; but the matter has now' come to us under Art. 136, and so we can justly inter- fere with the concurrent exercise of the discretion by the .courts below only if we feel that the said exercise of

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 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →