Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Official Liquidator, Pilot Pen Co. (P) Ltd.

Cit vs Official Liquidator, Pilot Pen Co. (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 20, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/829426

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number
T. C. Nos. 627 and 628 of 1994 (References Nos. 247 and 248 of 1994) 20 June 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, for the Assessee Head Note: INCOME TAX Loss--CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFFAmount incurred as security charges Catch Note: Expenditure incurred as security charges in respect of land and factory building should be treated as loss from separat...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, <i>for the Revenue </i>P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

Official Liquidator, Pilot Pen Co. (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]253ITR533(Mad)

Excerpt

counsels: mrs. chitra venkataraman, for the revenue p. p. s. janarthana raja, for the assessee head note: income tax loss--carry forward and set offamount incurred as security charges catch note: expenditure incurred as security charges in respect of land and factory building should be treated as loss from separate sub-source of income and was eligible for set off against other incomes. ratio: expenditure incurred as security charges in respect of land and factory building should be treated as loss from separate sub-source of income and was eligible for set off against other incomes. case law analysis: cit v. gannon dunkerley & co. (p) ltd. (2000) 243 itr 646 (mad) applied. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of assessee. income tax act 1961 s.70 in the madras high court r. jayasimha babu & k. gnanaprakasam, jj. - constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding, that the expenditure of rs.52,945 for the assessment year 1986-87 incurred as security charges in respect of the land and factory building should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes, irrespective of the fact, that there is no income from this sub-source during the relevant previous year ?whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of rs. 68,422 for the assessment year 1987-88 incurred as security charges, in respect of the land and factory building, should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes, irrespective of the fact, that there is no income from this sub-source during the relevant previous year ?'the assessee made a claim that the amount incurred by way of security charges, in respect of the land and factory building should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes. the said contention of the assessee was accepted by the tribunal and as against this, this reference has been made.the learned advocate for the revenue fairly placed before us, the decision in the case of cit v. gannon dunkerley and co. (p) ltd. : [2000]243itr646(mad) , wherein it was held that the expenditure that had been incurred by the official liquidator by way of rent and payment of statutory dues had nexus with the earning of interest and, therefore, those amounts were deductible and the assessee is entitled to the claim made by it.the principles laid down in the said case are squarely applicable to the case on hand, as the assessee spent the amount towards security charges to safeguard its land and factory building. hence, the tribunal was correct in coming to the aforementioned.....

Full Judgment

K. Gnanaprakasam, J.

At the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, respectively :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding, that the expenditure of Rs.52,945 for the assessment year 1986-87 incurred as security charges in respect of the land and factory building should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes, irrespective of the fact, that there is no income from this sub-source during the relevant previous year ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 68,422 for the assessment year 1987-88 incurred as security charges, in respect of the land and factory building, should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes, irrespective of the fact, that there is no income from this sub-source during the relevant previous year ?'

The assessee made a claim that the amount incurred by way of security charges, in respect of the land and factory building should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes. The said contention of the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal and as against this, this reference has been made.

The learned advocate for the revenue fairly placed before us, the decision in the case of CIT v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (P) Ltd. : [2000]243ITR646(Mad) , wherein it was held that the expenditure that had been incurred by the Official Liquidator by way of rent and payment of statutory dues had nexus with the earning of interest and, therefore, those amounts were deductible and the assessee is entitled to the claim made by it.

The principles laid down in the said case are squarely applicable to the case on hand, as the assessee spent the amount towards security charges to safeguard its land and factory building. Hence, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the aforementioned conclusion and, therefore, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial