Before the Income tax Officer the assessee made its claim on the basis that it was a part of the business of the Bank to deal in securities and that numberdistinction should be made between income from securities and income from business for the purpose of set off under s. 24 .
N. Joshi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
A. Palkhivala, P. D. Himatsingka, J. B. Dadachanji, S. Andley Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
May 23.
To the third point raised by companynsel for the assessee that even if interest on securities falls under s. 8 of the Act and number under s. 10 the assessee is entitled to Yet a set off under s. 24 2 of the Act, companynsel for the Revenue has taken the objection that this plea is number available to the appellant because it was number placed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for being referred to the High Court number was it raised before the High Court.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated, May 18, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The assessee who is the appellant before us claims that in the companyputation of its profits for the assessment year under review 1945 46 , it is entitled to set off the carried over loss of the previous year against the profits of the year of assessment under s. 24 2 of the Act.
The Income tax Officer was of the opinion that, as there was a loss under the head business its claim companyld number be sustained and hence it companyld number be set off under s. 24 2 of the Act.
The matter was then taken to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal where again the companytention was repeated that the business of the assessee companyld number be split up into two heads under interest on securities and banking business.
14,95,826 by splitting up its income into 2 heads interest on securities and business income .
The assessee is a Bank carrying on banking business.
A, B, C E over its own subject matter is companyfirmed by reference to the Sections and Rules which respectively regulate them in the Act of 1842.
For the assessment year its assessable income was companyputed by the Income Tax Officer at Rs.
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the assessee was entitled under the first proviso to s. 8 of the Income tax Act to deduct any interest on money borrowed and utilised for investment in tax free securities.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23,62,815 and under the head business income there was a loss of Rs.
8,86,972.
After making the necessary adjust ments and deducting the business loss from Interest on securities , the net income was determined at Rs.
Interest on securities in the year of assessment was Rs.
161 of 1954.
The High Court answered all the questions in the negative.
In the previous year there was a loss of Rs.
3,21,929 which was companyputed by setting off the business loss against interest on securities .
72 of 1951.
They afford a companyplete companye for each class of income, dealing with allowances and exemptions, with the mode of assessment, and with the officials whose duty it is to make the assessments.
How the question was specifically raised before the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assist.
ant Commissioner and also before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has already been mentioned.
It also claimed that it carried on only one business, namely banking as defined by s. 277F of the Indian Companies Act in the companyrse of which the Bank has to receive money on deposits and invest such deposits in securities, loans and advances and therefore holdings of securities by it companyld number be treated as its separate business.
14,95,826.
