The Income tax authorities disallowed the claim on the ground that if the Bhatinda transactions had resulted in profits, such profits would have been exempt from tax in terms of s.14 2 c as it then stood and if the profits were exempt from tax, the proviso to a. 24 1 of the Act was a bar to the adjustment of the losses.
It claimed that it had incurred losses to number residents there in the sums of Rs.
During the relevant accounting periods the firm entered into certain transactions called hedge transactions in the billion market at Bhatinda then a part of the Patiala State, that is, outside the taxable territories of British India .
Similarly, the bars were also sold by the firm through a Bhatinda party on the telephone.
Similarly, it was charged to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period ending on February 6, 1946.
Thereafter the Commissioner of Incometax, Delhi, asked for and obtained a certificate under s.66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act and on that certificate the present appeals have been brought to this Court.
For the assessment year 1946 47 it was charged to income tax on its income from the business in the relevant accounting period.
40 of 1960, arises out of the assessment of excess profits tax.
One of the appeals, Civil Appeal No.
16,615/ in the said transactions and claimed that these losses should be taken into companysideration in determining its income.
The assessee then moved the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 23, 1957, of the Punjab High.
Apparently , numberdelivery was intended to be taken or was taken of the bars bought or sold number did the firm have any branch or agent at Bhatinda.
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
13 of 1955.
39 and 40 of 1960.
This was the nature of the transactions Which resulted in the losses for which the firm claimed deduction.
6,366/ and Rs.
It appears from the assessment order of the Income tax Officer, Delhi, dated January 27, 1949 that the firm purchased certain sillies bars of gold and silver from a Bhatinda party on the telephone, which purchases were later companyfirmed by a letter or wire.
Court in Civil Reference No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, K. N Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
Messrs Chunilal Moonga Ram, a firm of Delhi, carried on a speculative business in bullion, mostly in ,old and silver, in Chandni Chowk at Delhi.
The relevant facts are these.
May 5.
The transactions were in the nature of forward transactions carried out by means of telephone messages, letters or telegrams with parties at Bhatinda.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS, J. These two appeals have been brought to this Court on a certificates of fitness granted by the High, Court of Punjab under s. 66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
39 of 1960, arises out of the assessment of income tax and the other appeal, Civil Appeal No.
