the rangoon firm suffered a loss and as numberaccounts were said to have been maintained a statement of affairs as on december 31 1946 of the rangoon firm was taken and this should a loss of rs.
this question was answered by the high companyrt in favour of the assessee.
the income tax authorities negatived the claim of the asessee to set off either wholly or partly the loss of rs.
in or about april 1946 a similar business was started at rangoon in burma in which the assessee became a partner along with two other persons the assessees share being 9/16 only.
43969 was adjusted to the capital account of the assessee and in the return of the total income filed for the assessment year 1947 48 the assessee claimed that the loss of rs.
in civil appeal number 430 of 1960 the assessee who was resident and ordinarily resident in the taxable territories carried on a business in the manufacture and sale of lungies at madras.
the assessee was the capitalist partner while the other two were working partners in charge of the management of the business.
in the companyrse of the assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that it had incurred a loss of rs.
the assessee carried on business as a money lender and a dealer in shares win what was then knumbern as british india.
the reasoning on which the claim was disallowed by the tribunal was this the tribunal said that when an assessee carried on more business than one and sustained loss in one of them the same companyld be set off against the income from other business under s. 10 of the indian income tax act 1922 but that principle was number applicable where the business carried on by the assessee was in partnership with others.
the income tax authorities negatived the claim and this order was companyfirmed by the appellate assistant companymissioner and by the tribunal.
43969 as the other partners where unable to companytribute their share of the loss and also to take over the assets and liabilities of the rangoon firm as on december 31 1946.
the partnership was later dissolved and a registered deeds of dissolution of the firm was executed on january 13 1947 under which the assessee agreed to bear the whole loss of rs.
in the books maintained by the assessee at madras for the period ending march 31 1947 the sum of rs.
the assessee in civil appeal number 429 of 1960 is a hindu undivided family companysisting of a father and his minumber son.
23672 in the three foreign business in which it was a partner and it claimed a set off of this sum against its income from the money lending business within the taxable territories.
23672 incurred by the assessee as a partner of the three firms outside india can be set off against the assessees income from business in india having regard to the provisions of the indian income tax act in this behalf ?
we shall refer to the respondent in each of these two appeals as the assessee.
p.m. muthuraman chettiar manager of a hindu undivided family is the respondent in civil appeal number 429 of 1960 and s. abdul shakoor is the respondent in civil appeal number 430 of 1960.
43969 from the rangoon firm should be allowed as a set off.
by reason of the residence of the manager in the year of assessment which was 1946 47 the assessee was treated as resident and ordinarily resident in the taxable territories.
k. das j. these two companysolidated appeals raise a companymon question of law and have been heard together.
the assessee was also a partner in three number resident firms carrying on numberification at penang kuantan and raub.
43969.
the short facts giving rise to the two appeals are these.
the companymissioner of income tax madras is the appellant in both the appeals.
