1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rejects set-off of capital losses against dividend income, emphasizes active business distinction. Assess operational status.</h1> The court ruled in favor of the Income-Tax Commissioner, rejecting the assessees' claim to set off losses of a capital nature against dividend income. The ... - Issues: Determination of whether the company carried on business within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, the nature of losses claimed by the company, and the eligibility to set off losses against dividend income.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a limited company registered in 1904 under the Indian Companies Act, engaging in various businesses as outlined in its memorandum of association. The company faced financial challenges leading to liquidation proceedings in 1923. Subsequently, the company attempted to resume activities without notable success. The Income-Tax Commissioner contended that the company existed primarily to dispose of its concerns before closing down permanently, based on evidence indicating minimal business activity beyond selling old stock in the year under review.The assessees sought to set off losses from various concerns against dividend income received from another entity, arguing for a similar treatment as established in a Full Bench decision of the High Court. However, the court distinguished between separate and interlinked businesses, emphasizing that a company can operate distinct enterprises. The judgment cited precedents from English cases to support the distinction.The court rejected the assessees' claim to set off losses of a capital nature against dividend income, emphasizing that Section 10 of the Income Tax Act applies to active businesses, not ceased operations. The judgment highlighted that the businesses in question were separate entities, and the losses could not be offset against profits from other active businesses. Consequently, the court ruled against the assessees, upholding the Income-Tax Commissioner's position.In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in favor of the Income-Tax Commissioner, emphasizing the distinction between active and ceased businesses in determining the eligibility for setting off losses against dividend income. The judgment underscored the need to assess businesses' operational status and their interrelation to determine the applicability of tax provisions accurately.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
