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>High Court upholds carry forward of losses for new business activity under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Amarsinghji Mills Limited.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Amarsinghji Mills Limited. - [2006] 286 ITR 129, 201 CTR 265, 156 TAXMANN 414 Issues:Interpretation of section 72(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding carry forward and set off of accumulated losses for a new business activity.Analysis:The High Court of Gujarat deliberated on the interpretation of section 72(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the context of allowing carry forward and set off of accumulated losses for a new business activity. The case involved a limited company that sold its textile unit and engaged in a new business of purchasing and processing grey cloth for sale. The Revenue contended that the new business was distinct and not eligible for the benefit of carrying forward losses from the sold unit. The Tribunal, however, found common management and control between the old and new businesses, emphasizing unity of control as a key factor in determining continuity of business. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 72(1)(i) which allow for the carry forward of losses subject to certain conditions, including the continuity of the business for which the loss was computed. The Court referred to the decision in Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. CIT and the Supreme Court's ruling in B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, CIT to establish the legal framework for assessing continuity of business for loss carry forward purposes.The Court highlighted that the determination of whether a business activity constitutes the same business across different accounting periods is a mixed question of law and fact. It emphasized the need to apply specific tests to the factual findings of each case to ascertain continuity of business. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in B.R. Ltd., the Court stressed the importance of common management, control, business organization, and administration in establishing the unity of business for loss carry forward eligibility. The Court noted that the mere difference in operational procedures does not negate the continuity of business if common control and management exist.Based on the findings of the Tribunal regarding common management and control of the assessee's business activities, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the carry forward and set off of accumulated losses for the new business. The Court concluded that the new business activity was deemed the same as the earlier business, entitling the assessee to the benefit of carrying forward losses. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, establishing the legal precedence for interpreting section 72(1)(i) in cases of business continuity for loss carry forward purposes.
TaxTMI 