1971 (10) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court rules on illegal contracts, losses treatment for tax purposes

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus SC Kothari

The Supreme Court held that the contracts were illegal under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, and the losses from these contracts could not ... Whether the contracts in respect of which the loss was claimed were illegal contracts - held that the contracts were illegal - losses in illegal transactions can not be set off against profits of other speculative transactions Issues Involved:1. Legality of the contracts under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.2. Entitlement to set off losses from illegal transactions.3. Classification of the transactions as speculative under section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.4. Entitlement to set off the balance of the loss against other income.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Contracts:The primary issue was whether the contracts resulting in a loss of Rs. 3,40,443 were illegal under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The Supreme Court noted that the transactions contravened section 15(4) of the Act, which prohibits members of a recognized association from entering into contracts with non-members without proper authority and disclosure. The Court held that such contracts were illegal and unenforceable as they fell within the ambit of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, which deems agreements forbidden by law as void. The High Court's failure to address this point was corrected by the Supreme Court, which concluded that the contracts were indeed illegal.2. Entitlement to Set Off Losses from Illegal Transactions:The second issue was whether the losses from these illegal transactions could be set off against other income. The High Court had held that losses from illegal transactions could be deducted when computing business income under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that profits and losses from an illegal business must be considered for tax purposes as they are part of the business's net profit. The Court emphasized that while penalties for illegal activities are not deductible, losses incurred in the business's operation, even if illegal, must be deducted to determine the true taxable profit.3. Classification of Transactions as Speculative:The third issue was whether the transactions were speculative under section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal and the High Court had found the transactions to be speculative since they were settled by paying differences rather than actual delivery. The Supreme Court did not dispute this classification but noted that speculative transactions must be enforceable contracts. Since the contracts were illegal and unenforceable, they could not be considered speculative transactions eligible for set-off under section 24.4. Entitlement to Set Off the Balance of the Loss Against Other Income:The fourth issue was whether the balance of the loss could be set off against other income. The High Court had held that the balance loss of Rs. 1,21,397 could not be set off against other income due to the first proviso to section 24(1). The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the set-off provisions under section 24(1) did not apply to illegal and unenforceable contracts. The Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine if the profits and losses were incurred in the same business, which would allow the loss to be deducted from the profit under section 10(1).Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the contracts were illegal and the losses from these contracts could not be set off under section 24. However, such losses must be considered when computing taxable income under section 10(1). The matter was remanded to the High Court to determine whether the profits and losses were from the same business. The appeal by special leave was disposed of accordingly, and the appeal by certificate was dismissed. No costs were awarded.