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 losses incurred in Cochin or other Indian States could be set off against profits earned in Travancore under the first proviso to section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The proviso to section 32(1) was construed in the same manner as the corresponding proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The main enactment allowed set-off of a loss of profits or gains against income, profits or gains under another head, and the proviso was held to be an exception to that rule, not a provision enlarging it or creating a separate rule of computation for business income. The statutory scheme, including the provisions governing total income, business income and exempt income, did not justify reading the proviso as splitting up the head of business by territory. The language used was not sufficient to confine the set-off only to business income arising in a particular territory, and where the Legislature intended such a restriction it said so expressly.
Conclusion: The losses were allowable to be set off against the Travancore profits, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A proviso must be confined to carving out an exception from the main enactment and cannot be read, without clear language, as creating a separate territorial rule that restricts set-off of business losses against business profits.