FOLLOWED Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 709 (Cal). In this decision it was submitted that similar issue with regard to the losses on account
of breeding horses and pigs which are exempt u/s. 10(27) whether can be set off against its income of other source under the head "business". The Hon'ble High Court after considering the relevant provisions of section 10(27) and section 70, held that section 10(27) excludes in expressed terms only any income derived from business of livestock breeding, poultry or dairy farming. It does not exclude the business of livestock breeding, poultry or dairy farming from the operation of the Act. The losses suffered by the assessee in respect of livestock, breeding were held to be admissible for deduction and were allowed to be set off against other business income.
Contrary Decisions
There is a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. Asst. CIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj), which has decided this issue against the assessee. However, in the said decision, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has not been referred at all. Therefore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point.
Decisions Distinguished
ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 68 has decided somewhat similar issue against the assessee. Issue involved was whether the loss on transfer of capital asset being units US 64 Scheme of Unit Trust of India can be allowed and entitled to carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent assessment years, when the income arising from such transfer of unit is exempt u/s. 10(33). The Tribunal held that the source both capital gain and capital loss on sale of units of US64 is itself excluded and not only the income arising out of capital gain. The Hon'ble Tribunal have noted the history of US64 Scheme and the purpose for which such scheme was launched. In this context of transfer of US64 scheme the Tribunal held that the provisions were not meant to enable the assessee to claim loss by indexation for set off against other capital gain chargeable to tax. This decision is slightly distinguishable
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 which says that if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words ' income ' or ' profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense 'profits and gains' represent ' plus income ' whereas losses represent 'minus income'. In other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Although Section 6 classifies income under six heads, the main charging provision is Section 3 which levies income-tax, as only one tax, on the 'total income ' of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge."
ITAT Mumbai held while distinguishing the decisions of SC
of breeding horses and pigs which are exempt u/s. 10(27) whether can be set off against its income of other source under the head "business". The Hon'ble High Court after considering the relevant provisions of section 10(27) and section 70, held that section 10(27) excludes in expressed terms only any income derived from business of livestock breeding, poultry or dairy farming. It does not exclude the business of livestock breeding, poultry or dairy farming from the operation of the Act. The losses suffered by the assessee in respect of livestock, breeding were held to be admissible for deduction and were allowed to be set off against other business income.
Contrary Decisions
There is a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. Asst. CIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj), which has decided this issue against the assessee. However, in the said decision, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has not been referred at all. Therefore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point.
Decisions Distinguished
ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 68 has decided somewhat similar issue against the assessee. Issue involved was whether the loss on transfer of capital asset being units US 64 Scheme of Unit Trust of India can be allowed and entitled to carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent assessment years, when the income arising from such transfer of unit is exempt u/s. 10(33). The Tribunal held that the source both capital gain and capital loss on sale of units of US64 is itself excluded and not only the income arising out of capital gain. The Hon'ble Tribunal have noted the history of US64 Scheme and the purpose for which such scheme was launched. In this context of transfer of US64 scheme the Tribunal held that the provisions were not meant to enable the assessee to claim loss by indexation for set off against other capital gain chargeable to tax. This decision is slightly distinguishable
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 which says that if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words ' income ' or ' profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense 'profits and gains' represent ' plus income ' whereas losses represent 'minus income'. In other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Although Section 6 classifies income under six heads, the main charging provision is Section 3 which levies income-tax, as only one tax, on the 'total income ' of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge."
ITAT Mumbai held while distinguishing the decisions of SC
"...........While concluding the issue their Lordships observed that "it may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set- off. Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequent year. It pre-supposes the permissibility and possibility of the carried-forward loss being absorbed or set off against the profits and gains, if any, of the subsequent year. Set off implies that the tax is exigible and the assessee wants to adjust the loss against profit to reduce the tax demand. It follows that if such set-off is not permissible or possible owing to the income or profits of the subsequent year being from a non-taxable source, there would be no point in allowing the loss to be "carried forward". Conversely, if the loss arising in the previous year was under a head not chargeable to tax, it could not be allowed to be carried forward and absorbed against income in a subsequent year from a taxable source." The ratio and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would not apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon'ble Apex Court on the other hand, itself has stated that if loss from the source or head of income is not liable for tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, then it need not be computed or shown in the return and Assessing Officer also need not assess it. This distinction has to be kept in mind. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club have discussed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the same will not apply in such cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment