The Commissioner observed that there was numberbusiness income in the assessment year 1956 57.
The point companyld have been companysidered by the Commissioner in the revision application for the assessment year 1956 57.
An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax claiming that the loss for the assessment year 1955 56 should be carried forward and set off against the income for the assessment year 1957 58 under sub s. 2 of s. 24 because both the loss and the income arose from business carried on by the appellant.
The judgment of the Division Bench is under appeal before us.
The revision application pertaining to the assessment year 1955 56 was allowed subject to the claim being verified in regard to the figures and calculation of depreciation by the Income Tax Officer.
The revision petitions remained pending for eight years.
Meanwhile, on March 28, 1957 the appellant had already been assessed for the subsequent assessment year 1956 57 in the status of a number resident, and its income of Rs.53,11,958 from dividends was assessed under the head Income from Other Sources.
The Commissioner also rejected the companytention of the appellant that a set off should be allowed to the extent of the unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from the assessment year 1955 56 against the business income derived during the assessment year 1956 57.
Meanwhile the appellants assessment for the assessment year 1957 58 was companypleted in November 1957 as a number resident, determining an income of Rs.51,85,836 received by way of dividends on its share holdings.
The appellant claimed also that the loss should be ascertained for the purpose of carrying it forward, and further that the loss should be bifurcated between an unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.40,27,853 and other loss.
The revision application pertaining to the assessment year 1956 57, however, was rejected with the observation that the dividend earned by the appellant from investments in shares of companypanies carrying on the tea business companyld number be said to be a part of the appellants business because the investments were number incidental to the appellants business activities and were number held as trading assets.
It is obvious that the loss determined for the assessment year 1955 56 companyld number be carried forward and set off against the income for the assessment year 1956 57, as the latter assessment was made subsequent to the former.
The Commissioner of Income Tax applied for a reference to the High Court but the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application on December 1, 1966.
317 of 1970 A. Ramachandran, J. Ramamurthi and D.N. Gupta for the Appellant.
2020 NT of 1974 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
On February 12, 1958 the appellant preferred two revisions applications, one each for the assessment years 1955 56 and 1956 57, before the Commissioner of Income tax under sub s. 2 of s. 33A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
It mentioned that it carried on business in tea in the United Kingdom and the investments were made in the usual companyrse of its tea business in companypanies also engaged in the tea business exclusively.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As its Indian income exceeded its income outside India it was assessed as a resident.
An appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on August 14, 1973.
In the revision application for the assessment year 1955 56 the appellant claimed that the quantum of loss determined for that year having been based on provisional figures should number be revised on the basis of the final figures certified by an Inspector of Taxes in the United Kingdom.
On December 5, 1966 the Commissioner of Income Tax disposed of the revision applications filed by the appellant.
It was also stated that the companypanies from which the dividend was earned were number companypanies of which the appellant was managing agent so as to require the making of such investments for the purposes of its business as managing agents.
The appellant has invested in the shares of other tea companypanies in different parts of the world, and has a hundred per cent share holding in an Indian subsidiary, Brooke Bond India Limited.
The appellant is assessed under the Indian Income Tax Act, and the relevant financial year is the previous year in relation to the companyresponding assessment year.
In the revision application for the assessment year 1956 57 the appellant claimed a set off of the loss determined for the assessment year 1955 56 against the income of the assessment year 1956 57 on the ground that the shares held by it in tea companypanies companystituted its trading assets and the dividend income accruing therefrom should be regarded as income from business.
M. Lodha and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
The appellant appealed to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and on July 1, 1966 the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal afresh after determining whether the appellant was entitled to set off a business loss arising outside the taxable territories for the assessment year 1955 56 against the dividend income arising in the taxable territories for the assessment year 1957 58.
On the basis of those provisional figures it was assessed to a net loss of Rs.31,33,647.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta is directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court companyfirming on appeal the dismissal of the appellants writ petition.
For the assessment year 1955 56 the appellant was assessed on its total world income by an assessment order dated July 16, 1957 on the basis of provisional figures of its business loss including depreciation, and its income from dividends.
The appellant, Brooke Bond Company Ltd., number known as Brooke Bond Leibig Limited, is a sterling companypany carrying on business in tea with its Head Office in the United Kingdom.
By his order dated August 14, 1958 the Appellant Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal holding that there would be numberloss if the loss for the assessment year 1955 56 was set off against the income for the assessment year 1956 57, and that the loss companyld number be legally set off directly in the assessment year 1957 58.
Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta against the disposal of his revision application for the assessment year 1956 57, but on September 22, 1969 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
