1980 (8) TMI 67 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules different units not same business for retrenchment & bad debts deductions

Bansidhar Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I

Bansidhar Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I - [1981] 127 ITR 65, 20 CTR 90, 5 TAXMANN 158 Issues Involved:1. Whether the Steel-O-Style Unit and other units constituted the same business for the purpose of allowing retrenchment compensation as a deduction.2. Whether the activities of the steel rolling mill and machinery manufacturing units constituted the same business as the purchase and sale of cloth and manufacturing of chemicals and dyes for the purpose of allowing bad debts as a deduction.3. Whether the assessee was entitled to the capital loss of Rs. 47,381 in the year of account.Summary:Issue 1: Retrenchment Compensation DeductionThe Tribunal held that the Steel-O-Style Unit and the units involved in the purchase and sale of cloth, and the processing and manufacturing of colors and chemicals did not constitute the same business. Consequently, the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 9,603 paid to the workers of the Steel-O-Style unit after its closure was not an allowable deduction. The Tribunal's decision was based on the distinct nature of the businesses, different locations, separate staff, and independent financial records.Issue 2: Bad Debts DeductionThe Tribunal also held that the activities of the steel rolling mill and machinery manufacturing units, which were closed in 1961 and 1962 respectively, did not constitute the same business as the purchase and sale of cloth and manufacturing of chemicals and dyes. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the deduction of bad debts amounting to Rs. 34,617 against the income for the assessment year 1967-68. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct nature of the businesses, separate management, and independent financial records.Issue 3: Capital LossThe third question regarding the capital loss of Rs. 47,381 was not pressed by the assessee and thus was not considered by the court.Court's Analysis and Conclusion:The court referred to several leading decisions to determine what constitutes the 'same business.' It emphasized factors such as common management, common business organization, common administration, common fund, and common place of business. The court concluded that there was complete interconnection, interlacing, interdependence, and dovetailing of the different business activities carried on by the assessee, constituting one single business.Final Judgment:The court answered questions 1 and 2 in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, allowing the deductions for retrenchment compensation and bad debts. Question 3 was not required to be answered. There was no order as to costs.