Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee's manufacturing business in yarn and cloth and its forward transactions in hessian, sacking, bullion and castor seeds constituted the same business for the purpose of carry-forward and set-off of losses under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The relevant inquiry is not whether the activities are carried on under common ownership, common finance, common staff, common books, or from the same premises, but whether their nature and conduct show such inter-connection, interlacing, inter-dependence, and unity that they form one commercial whole. The actual character of the ventures is the controlling consideration. Activities that are intrinsically different in nature do not become one business merely because they are managed together or pursued to earn profit. On the facts, the manufacture of textiles and dealings in forward transactions in commodities like hessian, sacking and castor seed were distinct commercial activities and could not be treated as one integrated business.
Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. The assessee was not entitled to treat the two sets of activities as the same business for section 24(2).
Ratio Decidendi: For carry-forward and set-off of business losses, the decisive test is whether the competing activities are so interconnected and interdependent as to constitute one commercial unit; common management, finance, staff, or accounts by themselves are insufficient.