Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (4) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als, salt and detergents in its factories. One of such manufacturing unit is at Mithapur in Gujarat. Subsequently, it set up is a subsidiary company known as "Tata Fertilizers", but this subsidiary company amalgamated with the respondent under the order of this court passed on a company application on September 7, 1989. The respondent thereafter set up a fertilizer plant at Babrala in the State of U. P. Certain deductions were claimed by the respondent for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer disallowed some of the deductions claimed, particularly those under section 36(1)(iii) and section 37(4) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer passed on March 24, 1995, an appeal was preferred by the responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns though raised were not pressed into service. Hence, our order is confined to the questions raised. The appeal on other questions stands dismissed as not pressed. Consideration: Question (a): As far as question (a) is concerned, it is not in dispute that this question was not raised before the Tribunal. Mr. Desai submitted before us that under section 260A(6)(a) it is permissible for the High Court to determine any issue which is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The careful reading of the section will show that the High Court can decide only that question which was raised but not determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, it was necessary that the question sought to be raised ought to have been raised before the Tribunal and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai. As against this, the Appellate Tribunal has culled out the propositions of law based on various judgments of the apex court as well as of various High Courts in para. 28 of its order. It has summarised propositions and determined the tests on the question of unity of business. They are as follows: "(i) The nature of the two lines of business is not relevant. (ii) The fact that one business can be conveniently closed down without affecting the other business is a strong indication that both the businesses are distinct and separate. But no decisive inference can be drawn from the fact. (iii) The decisive test is the unity of control which is indicated by interlacing, interdependence a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar section was held allowable. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the decisive test is the unity of control which is indicated by interlacing, interdependence and interconnection between the businesses and dovetailing of one into the other. In the present case, it is quite clear that the amalgamation of the subsidiary was allowed by the High Court. Thereafter it is for the management of the company to manage its affairs and the benefit which would be available for the borrowings done for a unit would certainly be claimable by the company as such. Section 36(1)(iii) which permits the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business will have to include the borrowing for a unit of the company .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450, wherein the above referred proposition in the case of CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) has been approved. In the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC), whose business was of warehousing the foodgrains and not of investment, such deduction on the same footing was permitted by the apex court. In these circumstances, the resolution of this question was based on facts since the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the investment in question was a business investment. We do not find that this ground raises any substantial question of law for our consideration. This question sought to be raised therefore needs no consideration. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates