Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. R. Mukundas Malani and Sons. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Reported inAIR1979AP234; (1979)8CTR(AP)96
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentG. R. Mukundas Malani and Sons.
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........of its order, recorded :-'we are also of the same view and we hold that the loss incurred by the assessee not having been shown to be a loss from speculation business it has to be treated as a loss arising in the course of assessees regular business.'3. in view of the finding recorded by the tribunal on the facts, we must hold that the loss is a business loss in the course of regular business. we, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue. no costs. advocates fee rs. 250/-.
Judgment:

S. Obul Reddi, C.J. - The following question has been referred to this Court u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue.

2. The assessee is a registered firm deriving income as a dealer in cloth. For the assessment year 1972-73 corresponding to Diwali year ending with 18-10-1971, the assessee showed a loss of Rs. 10,051/- on a turnover of Rs. 1,23,008/- in respect of its transactions with M/s. D.B.R. Mills Ltd. Hyderabad. This loss included an amount of Rs. 18,620/- representing compensation paid for cancellation of a contract to purchase 205 bales of cloth from the mill. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts in detail in view of the finding of fact ultimately recorded by the Tribunal, in paragraph 7 of its order, recorded :-

'We are also of the same view and we hold that the loss incurred by the assessee not having been shown to be a loss from speculation business it has to be treated as a loss arising in the course of assessees regular business.'

3. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the facts, we must hold that the loss is a business loss in the course of regular business. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //