1932 (1) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ains of the businesses carried on by it on its own account during the year of account. 2. The facts with regard to this matter can be shortly stated. The petitioners constitute a Hindu undivided family and carry on a money-lending business at Ootacamund. Up to 24th May, 1929, they also owned a half share in a firm styled "K.G.S. & Co." and a 2-5ths share in a firm styled "B.K.S. & Co." doing other classes of business in Ootacamund. These two firms were dissolved on 24th May, 1929, an account was taken of their assets and liabilities and those assets and liabilities, when ascertained, were distributed between the petitioners and another partner named B.K. Sunchai Gounder. The total of the liabilities falling to the share of the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....business. The argument put forward by Mr. S. Doraiswamy Ayyar proceeded to a great extent on the consideration of the question as to whether, when an assessee is carrying on more businesses than one and in respect of one of them he has to borrow capital and pay interest thereon and in respect of that business in the year of accounts a loss results, such interest paid in respect of that borrowed capital can or cannot be set off against the profits made by the assessee in some other business. We were referred to decisions of this Court in support of that argument. 3. It was not contended by Mr. Doraiswamy Iyer that any such deduction, which of course would be one under Section 10(2)(3), Income Tax Act, could be made directly from the profi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ividually and the other as a member of an unregistered firm, he is under Section 10(2), Income Tax Act, XI of 1922, entitled to set off, for purposes of Income Tax, the loss incurred by him in respect of the partnership trade against the profit made by him in his individual trade. The view taken in that case by Sir Walter Schwabe, C.J., was that the loss made in the one trade could not be set off against the profit made in the other under Section 24 because in his view that only enabled a loss in one class of business to be set off against the loss in another class of business. That we think is an incorrect view to take of that section; and the later decision of this High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suppan Chettiar 123 Ind. Cas. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the assets and liabilities of these two businesses and that some assets fell to the share of the petitioner family and also of the liabilities, the liabilities in respect of which interest amounting to Rs. 6,867 had to be paid and in respect of which this deduction is claimed in this case. The argument on behalf of the assessees has proceeded on footing that this is to be dealt with as a trading loss and that, if it is to be considered as a trading loss, the interest can be deducted from the profits, if any, of these businesses under Section 10(2)(3) and the loss resulting from such deduction can then be deducted from the profits made by the undivided family; but it seems to me to be quite clear that we are here dealing with capital loss....