TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rules Loss in Jobbing Transactions Cannot Offset Brokerage Profits under Tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Hukam Chand Dalal</h3> The court ruled that the loss in jobbing transactions cannot be set off against brokerage profits under section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act due to the ... - Issues:- Interpretation of the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Income Tax Act regarding set-off of losses in speculative transactions against profits from other business activities.Analysis:The judgment in question involves a reference under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act to determine whether the loss incurred in jobbing transactions can be set off against profits from brokerage activities under section 10 of the Act. The case revolved around the interpretation of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 24, inserted by the Finance Act, 1953. The proviso restricts the set-off of losses in speculative transactions against profits from other businesses. The assessee, in this case, operated both as a broker and a jobber, experiencing profits in brokerage but losses in speculation during the relevant period.The court delved into the relevant sections of the Act, emphasizing that taxable income can accrue under various heads, including profits and gains of business. Section 10(1) mandates tax payment under this head, with subsequent provisions outlining allowances for computing such profits. Section 24 addresses the set-off of losses, with the proviso in question limiting the set-off of speculative losses against profits from other businesses involving speculation. The dispute arose from differing interpretations by tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal regarding the application of this proviso.The judgment extensively analyzed previous decisions, notably from the Bombay High Court, to interpret the proviso's scope and intent. The court highlighted that the proviso's wording change necessitated a fresh interpretation, as seen in a similar case before the Bombay High Court. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind the proviso, clarifying that it operates as a substantive provision governing the computation of profits and losses under the head of business, profession, or vocation.The court rejected the contention that the proviso merely abridged the right to set off losses under different heads, asserting that it specifically dictates the quantum of profit or loss eligible for set-off under section 24(1). This interpretation aligns with subsequent decisions, including one by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, affirming the restrictive nature of the proviso. Ultimately, the court ruled that the loss in jobbing transactions cannot be adjusted against profits from brokerage activities due to the proviso's terms, upholding the view that the proviso functions as a substantive provision governing set-off calculations.In conclusion, the court answered the reference by affirming that the loss in jobbing transactions cannot be set off against brokerage profits under section 24(1) due to the proviso's specific restrictions. The assessee was directed to bear the Commissioner's costs, concluding the matter definitively based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
