# COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. PRITHVI INSURANCE CO. LTD

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 943
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-10-26
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-of-income-tax-madras-v-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-3943
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 24(2)-lnsuronce company carrying
on life insurance business as well as general insurance business-Such businesses whether one business for purpose of rection.
The respondent rompany carried on business of life and general insurance. In assessment·proceedings ior the year 1951-52, the Income.tax
Officer held that the life insurance business and the general insurance business carried on by the company were 'distinct and separate' and the loss
carried forward from the previous year in respect of life insurance business
could not be set off under s. 24(2) against the profit from the general insurance business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal
confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal based its decision primarily on the provisions of the Income-tax Act. which provided
different methods of computation of the taxable income of life insurance
business and of general insurance business.
In reference the High Court
decided in favour of the company, and the Revenue appealed. The test
suggested on behalf of the Revenue for determining whether the two businesses were one business within the meaning of s. 24(2) was whether one
of them could be closed without affecting the conduct of the other.
HELD : (i) The test suggested on behalf of the Revenue could not be
accepted.
If one business cannot conveniently be carried on after the
closure of the other, there would be a strong indication that the two business constitute "the same business", but no decisive inference may be drawn
from the fact that after the ~losure of one business another may conveniently be carried on. [948 DJ
(ii) Whether two or more lines of business may be regarded as the
"same business" or different business depends not uf>on the special methods
prescribed by the In.come-tax Act for computation of the taxable income,
but upon the nature of the lines of business, the nature of their organisation, management, the source of the capital fund utilised,
methods of
book keeping and a host of other related circumstances which stamp the
lines of business as same or distinct. [94 7 HJ
Scales v. George Thompson & c,,. Ltd., 13 T.C. 89, referred to.
(iii) In the present case there was little doubt that the two businesst!
constituted one composite business : the company was entitled to carry on
the life insurance business and the general insurance business under its
Memorandum of Association,. and the business were attended to by the
Branch Manager and the Agents without any distinction, there was one
common administrative organisation and the expenses incurred in connection with busincs. both for administration and for heads of expenditure
such as salary of the staff, postage, staff welfare fund and general charges,
were common. [948 BJ
The High Court was therefore right in holdin.g that the life insurance
busines:, and the general insurance business constituted the_ same business
within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Act. f949 BJ
- .
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967) I S.C.R.
CMr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 729-732
A
of 1965.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 3, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 196
of 1960.
R. M. Hazarnavis, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the
8
appellant (in all the appeals).
S. Swaminatlzan and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondent
(in all the appeals).

## Text

. \
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
MADRAS
v.
PRITHVI INSURANCE CO. LTD.
October 26, 1966
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 24(2)-lnsuronce company carrying
on life insurance business as well as general insurance business-Such businesses whether one business for purpose of rection.
The respondent rompany carried on business of life and general insurance. In assessment·proceedings ior the year 1951-52, the Income.tax
Officer held that the life insurance business and the general insurance business carried on by the company were 'distinct and separate' and the loss
carried forward from the previous year in respect of life insurance business
could not be set off under s. 24(2) against the profit from the general insurance business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal
confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal based its decision primarily on the provisions of the Income-tax Act. which provided
different methods of computation of the taxable income of life insurance
business and of general insurance business.
In reference the High Court
decided in favour of the company, and the Revenue appealed. The test
suggested on behalf of the Revenue for determining whether the two businesses were one business within the meaning of s. 24(2) was whether one
of them could be closed without affecting the conduct of the other.
HELD : (i) The test suggested on behalf of the Revenue could not be
accepted.
If one business cannot conveniently be carried on after the
closure of the other, there would be a strong indication that the two business constitute "the same business", but no decisive inference may be drawn
from the fact that after the ~losure of one business another may conveniently be carried on. [948 DJ
(ii) Whether two or more lines of business may be regarded as the
"same business" or different business depends not uf>on the special methods
prescribed by the In.come-tax Act for computation of the taxable income,
but upon the nature of the lines of business, the nature of their organisation, management, the source of the capital fund utilised,
methods of
book keeping and a host of other related circumstances which stamp the
lines of business as same or distinct. [94 7 HJ
Scales v. George Thompson & c,,. Ltd., 13 T.C. 89, referred to.
(iii) In the present case there was little doubt that the two businesst!
constituted one composite business : the company was entitled to carry on
the life insurance business and the general insurance business under its
Memorandum of Association,. and the business were attended to by the
Branch Manager and the Agents without any distinction, there was one
common administrative organisation and the expenses incurred in connection with busincs. both for administration and for heads of expenditure
such as salary of the staff, postage, staff welfare fund and general charges,
were common. [948 BJ
The High Court was therefore right in holdin.g that the life insurance
busines:, and the general insurance business constituted the_ same business
within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Act. f949 BJ
- .
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967) I S.C.R.
CMr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 729-732
A
of 1965.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 3, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 196
of 1960.
R. M. Hazarnavis, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the
8
appellant (in all the appeals).
S. Swaminatlzan and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondent
(in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The respondent, a public limited company, carried
on in the relevant years of account business of insurance-life
and general. In each of the calendar years 1944 to 1948 relating
to the assessment years 1945-46 to 1950-51, the Company suffered
loss in the life insurance section, and made profit in the general
insurance section. Till the assessment year
1950-51 the loss
suffered in the life insurance section was allowed by the Revenue
authorities to be carried forward and set off under s. 24(2) of the
Indian Income-tax
Act, 1922, against profits from the general
insurance section in the subsequent year. In proceedings for
assessment for the assessment year 1951-52 the Income-tax Officer
held that the life insurance business and the general insurance
business carried on by the Company were "distinct and separate"
and the loss carried forward from the previous year in respect of
life insurance business could not be set off under s. 24(2) against
the profit of the general insurance business. The Appe!late Assistant
Commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Incometax Officer. The Tribunal referred the following question to the
High Court of Madras under s. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act:
"Whether the unabsorbed losses incurred by the assessee
in the earlier years in its life insurance business arc available
to be sc:t off against its profits from general insurance
business for the assessment years_ 1951-52 to 1954-55 ?"
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. With
certificate granted by the High Court, these appeals have been
preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal summarises
the reasons which persuaded the Departmental authorities to reject
the claim of the Company. The Tribunal states:
"The business of life insurance possesses
peculiar
characteristics which do not exist in respect of other insurance businesses. Firstly, the life insurance policies are
not contracts of indemnity; they are forms of investments.
Other classes of insurance business are contracts of inc
D
•
.,
G
H
B
c
D
B
r
G
H
C.I.T. V. PRITHVI INSURANCE (Shah, J:)
945·
demnity. Secondly, the contract in the general insurance
is generally annual, while in the case of life business the
risk continues until death. Unlike general insurance contracts, the life contract, is made once and for all. The
general insurance contracts, are in law, fresh contracts
entered into at the time of each renewal. Thirdly, life
business is controlled by principles essentially variant
from those which control the general insurance business.
Fourthly, the life premia do not represent the life profits
nor can the total amount of claims arising in one year be
set off as a deduction. Fifthly, the law under which life
business is carried on is quite different from the laws
governing general business; and lastly, assessable profits
of life business shall be computed separately from those
of the general business, the consequence of which would
be that the carry forward of loss of life business cannot
be had against the profit of general business."
Tax payable by an assessee under the head "Profits and gains
of business, profession or vocation" is normally computed under
s. 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, after making allowances
mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 10. But sub-s. (7) of s. 10 provides
that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in ss.
8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 of the Act, the profits and gains of any business
of insurance and the tax payable thereon shall be computed in
accordance with the rules contained in the Schedule to the Act.
The Schedule is headed "Rules for the computation of the Profits
and Gains of Insurance Business". By r. I it is provided that in the
case of any person who carries on, or at any time in the preceding
year carried on, life insurance business, the profits and gains of such
person from that business shall' be computed separately from his
income, profits or gains from any other business. By r. 2 it is
provided:
"The profits and gains of life insurance shall be taken be to
either:-
(a) the gross external incoming of the preceding year from
that business less the management expenses of that year,
or
(b) the annual average of the surplus arrived at by adjusting
the surplus or deficit, disclosed by the actuarial valuation
made 'in accordance with the insurance Act, 1938 (IV of
1938), in respect of the last ·inter-valuation period ending
before the year for which the assessment is to be made
so ~ to ~xclude from it any surplus or deficit included
therem which was made in any earlier inter-valbation period
and any expenditure other than expenditure which may·
'946
SUl'REMI! COUllT llEPOllT~
(1967] I S.C.R·
under the provisions of section I 0 of this Act be allowed
for the computing the profits and gains of a ·business,
whichever is the greater:
Provided .
"
Rules 3 and 4 lay down the methods of computing the surplus for
the purpose of r. 2. Rule 5 is a definition clause. Rule 6 deals
with the computation of profits and gains of any business ofinsurance
other than life insurance, and provides that the profits and gains of
any business of insurance other than life insurance shall be taken
to be the balance ·Of the profits disclosed by the- annual accounts,
copies of which .are required under the Insurance Act, 1938, to be
furnished to the Controller of Insurance after adjusting such balance
so as to exclude from it any expenditure other than expenditure
which may under the provisions of s. 10 of the Act be allowed for in
computing the profits and gains of a business. Ruic 7 deals with
the computation of profits and gains of companies carrying on
dividing societies or assessment business. Rule 8 deals with the
computation of profits of non-resident insurance companies having
branches in the taxable territory. Rule 9 provides that the
profits of any business carried on by a mutual insurance association
or by a co-operative society shall be computed in accordance with
the rules.
Computation of the assessable income of an assessce carrying
on business of life insurance or general insurance has therefore
to be made in accordance with the rules and not by detennining the
profits
under sub-s. (I} of s. 10 after making allowances under
sub-s. (2).
Where an assessce sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year
under any of the heads mentioned in s. 6, he is entitled to have
the amount of the Joss set off against his income, profits or gains
under any other head in that year: [s. 24(1)]. Therefore in determining the taxable profits, the net balance under the same head mentioned in s. 6 has to be taken into account, and if there be loss
under a head of income (subject to the special exception relating
to admissibility of Joss from speculative business}, that loss has to
be set off against the income, profits or gains under any other
head. Sub-s. (I) does not however deal with carry forward to the
following year of loss suffered by the assessce as a result of computing
the total income from all the heads. That is dealt with under sub-s.
(2). Section 24(2) as it stood at the material time provided:
"Where any assessee sustains a Joss of profits or gains
in any year, being a previous year not earlier than the previous year for the assessment for the year ending on the 31st
day of March, 1940, in any business, profession or vocation,
and the loss cannot be wholly set off under sub-section (I),
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
H.
A
B
c
D
r
G
H
CJ.T. V. PRITRVI INSURANCE (Shah, /.)
947
so much of the loss as is not so set off or the whole loss wh~re
the assessee had no other head of income shall be earned
forward to the following year and set off against the
profits and gains, if any, of the assessee from the same
business, profession or vocation for that year;
"
The words italicised were substituted by the Income Tax
Amendment Act 25 of 1953, for the words "under the head '.Profits
and gains ofbusiness, profession or vocation'", and "the portion not
so set off" respectively. At the relevant time loss which could not be
set off in the year of account may be carried forward to the following year, but it could be set off against the profits and gains of the
assessee from "the same business, profession or vocation". If the
loss carried forward from the previous year and sought to be set off
was not from the same business, profession or vocation, it could
not be set off under s. 24(2). If there was no income or profits
from the same business in the subsequent year the loss could not be
set off, but had to be carried forward in the next year following,
subject to the restriction placed in that sub-section.
The question whether the business of life insurance and the
business of general insurance could be regarded as the same business
assumes importance in this case, since the right to carry forward
the loss suffered in the life insurance business and to set it off against
the profit of the company in the general insurance business of the
subsequent year is dearly in issue. If the life insurance business
and the general insura116e business were not "the same business"
within the meaning of s. 24(2), loss in the life insurance business
which could not be set off against income from other businesses of the
Company and sources of income, could not be carried forward and
set off in the year following against the income from the general
insurance business.
Counsel for the Commissioner contended that life insurance
business and general insurance business were separ11te businesses
and he relied in support of that contention primarily upon the
method of computation of taxable income of the life insurance
business and of the general ·insurance business. Both in respect
of the life insurance business and general insurance business,
there are, as already mentioned, special methods of computation of
income. But because there are distinct methods of computation
of taxable income of the insurance business, and the general provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to computation of profits and
gains of a business in s. 10 and the related sections are inapplicable, it does not follow that the two businesses cannot be the "same
business" within the meaning of s. 24(2). Whether two or more
lines of businesses· may be regarded as the "same business" or
different businesses depends not upon the special methods pres-
9~8
SUPllBMI! COURT REPORTS '
[1967) I S.c.L
cribed by the Income-tax Act for computation of the taxable income,
but upon the nature of the businesses, the nature of their organisation, management, the source of the capital fund utilised, methods
of book-keeping and a host of other related circumstances which
stamp the businesses as same or distinct.
In the present case, there is little doubt that the two businesses
constituted one composite business: the Company was entitled
to carry on the life insurance business and the general insurance
business under its Memorandum of Association, and the businesses
were attended to by the Branch Managers and the Agents without
any distinction, there was one common administrative organization
:ind the expenses incurred in connection with the business both for
administration and for heads of expenditure such as salary of the
st•ff, postage, staff welfare fund and general charges, were common.
Wear~ u1.able to agree with counsel for the Commissioner that
the test whethe.r one of the businesses can be closed without affecting
the conduct of the other business, is a decisive test in determining
whether the two constitute the same businesswithin the meaning of
s. 24{2).
If one husiness cannot conveniently be carried on after the
closure o( the other, there would be a strong indication that the two
businesses constitute "the same business", but no decisive inference
may be drawn from the fact that after the closure of one business
another may conveniently be carried on.
In the present case the Trihunal's judgment proceeds not
upon any special drcumstJnces governing the distinctive organiza-
;ion, rn.rnagemen•, account, methods of book-keeping or the
pcculia1ities of the two businesses, hut primarily upon the provisions of the Income-tax Act which provide different methods of
computation of the taxable income of the life insurance business
.ind of the general insurance business. We arc unable to agree with
the Tribunal, that because in respect of the life insurance business
and
general insurance husiness there are special
methods
of computation of income for the purpose of levying income-tax,
they are not the "same business" within the meaning of s. 24{2).
A fairly adequate test for determining whether the two constitute
the same business is furnished by what Rowlatt, J. said in Scales v.
George Thompson & Co. Ltd: ( ')
"Was there any inter-connection, any interlacing, any
inter-dependence, any unity at all embracing those two businesses?''
B
c
D
E
G
That inter-connection, interlacing, inter-dependence and unity arc
H
furnished in this case by the existence of common management,
(I) 13 T.C. 83, 89.
B
C.I.T. v. PRITHVI INSURANCE (Shah, /.)
949
common business organisation, common administration, common
rund and a common place of business.
In our view therefore the High Court was right in holding
that the life insurance business and the general insurance business
constitute the same business within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the
Act.
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with costs. One
hearing fee.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.