Business deduction and loss set-off require active operations in India; a mere lull or future work efforts are insufficient.

A non-resident company with no permanent establishment, no office in India, and no contract in execution during the relevant period was not carrying on business in India. Mere correspondence, efforts to secure future work, or a temporary business lull did not make expenses and depreciation allowable as business deductions for that period. Because no business was being carried on in India, the claimed losses could not be treated as business loss capable of set-off under Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal erred in allowing the set-off, and the Revenue's position was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a non-resident company with no permanent establishment or office in India, and with no contract in execution during the relevant period, could still be regarded as carrying on business in India so as to claim deduction and set-off of expenses and depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of business loss set-off under Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period when business operations in India had ceased.

Issue (i): Whether a non-resident company with no permanent establishment or office in India, and with no contract in execution during the relevant period, could still be regarded as carrying on business in India so as to claim deduction and set-off of expenses and depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was whether there was any real business activity in India during the period for which the expenses were claimed. Mere correspondence, attempts to obtain fresh work, or a temporary lull in operations did not establish that business was being carried on in India. Where the earlier contract had expired long before, no fresh contract was in force, and the assessee had neither a permanent office nor any other office in India, the assessee could not be treated as having carried on business in India for that period. The reference to discontinuance and the assessee's own affidavit supported the conclusion that business in India had stopped for the relevant years.

Conclusion: The assessee was not carrying on business in India during the relevant period and was not entitled to the claimed deduction or set-off on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of business loss set-off under Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period when business operations in India had ceased.

Analysis: Section 71 could apply only where there was a business loss capable of being set off in law. Since the assessee was not in business in India during the relevant period, the expenses, depreciation, and other claims could not be treated as allowable business losses for set-off. The Tribunal's approach treating the assessee as being in business merely because of a business lull was erroneous in law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in allowing set-off under Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The common questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and the orders of the appellate authority were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-resident assessee cannot claim business deduction or set-off for a period in which it had no permanent establishment or operative business in India and no contract in execution, because a mere lull in business or attempts to obtain future work do not amount to carrying on business in India.

---