1. Dispute regarding the deductibility of managing agency commission earned from a foreign branch against Indian profits for a resident company under the Income-tax Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1956 Supreme(SC) 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd March, 1956
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Commissioner of income-tax,. Bombay, Appellant
Versus
Messrs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. G. N. Joshi and Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. R. J. Kolah and Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, G.N.Joshi, I.M.SHROFF, R.H.Dhebar, R.J.KOLAG
C.K.DAFTARY, G.N.Joshi, I.M.SHROFF, R.H.Dhebar, R.J.KOLAG
For a resident and ordinarily resident assessee carrying on the same business across multiple locations, including foreign territories, the business is treated as a single entity. Net profits are computed by pooling all profits and deducting all business expenses globally.
Headnote:(A) Income-tax Act - Section 10(2)(xv) - Computation of business profits - Expenditure for business purpose - Deduction of managing agency commission - Where an assessee carries on the same business at multiple locations, including foreign territories, and is resident and ordinarily resident, there is only one business for the purpose of computing profits - Net profits are determined by pooling profits from all branches and deducting all expenses therefrom (Para 9).
(B) Estoppel - Assessee's allocation of expenses in profit and loss statements - Whether an assessee is estopped from claiming a legal deduction because it erroneously allocated a part of the expenditure to a foreign branch in its accounts - Entitlement to deduction depends on the provision of law and not on the view the assessee might take of its rights (Para 8).
(C) Managing Agency Agreement - Commission based on net annual profits - Commission is payable on the overall net profits of the company after setting off losses of one branch against profits of another, regardless of the location of the branches (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A company engaged in the cotton trade with a head office and a foreign branch maintained separate accounts. It paid a commission to its managing agents based on a percentage of net annual profits. The company apportioned this commission between the head office and the foreign branch in its profit and loss statements. The tax authorities disputed whether the portion of the commission debited to the foreign branch could be allowed as a deduction against profits earned in the home country.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the assessee was resident and ordinarily resident, the business conducted in different locations constituted a single business. Therefore, all expenses, including the total managing agency commission, should be deducted from the pooled profits of all branches.
Issues: Whether a sum paid as commission to managing agents, which was apportioned and debited to a foreign branch's profit and loss statement, is allowable as a revenue deduction against the profits earned in the home country.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, when an assessee carries on the same business at various places, it is treated as one business. The net profits are calculated by pooling all profits and deducting all expenses. The internal accounting allocation of expenses by the assessee does not override the legal entitlement to a deduction if the expenditure was incurred for the business.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an assessee is estopped from claiming a legal deduction against Indian profits after erroneously allocating the expense to a foreign branch in its accounts. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. Deductions are determined by law, not accounting entries; for resident assessees, profits from all branches are pooled to deduct business expenses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, expenses for a single business are deducted from the pooled profits of all branches, regardless of location. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the deduction of managing agency commission against Indian profits is held to be allowable. (Para 11 )
6. Does an erroneous accounting allocation of expenses to a foreign branch preclude an assessee from claiming that deduction against Indian profits?
No. The admissibility of a deduction depends on the provisions of law and not on the view the assessee takes of its rights or erroneous accounting allocations; therefore, an assessee cannot be estopped from claiming a legally permissible deduction. (Para 8 )
7. How are profits and expenses calculated for a resident assessee operating the same business in multiple locations, including foreign territories?
For the purpose of computing profits, there is only one business. Net profits are determined by pooling profits from all branches and deducting all business expenses from the total pooled amount, regardless of whether some branches are in foreign territories. (Para 9 )
8. How is commission based on the net annual profits of a company treated when the company operates multiple branches?
Such commission is calculated on the overall net profits of the company, which requires taking into account the results of all branches, including setting off losses in one branch against profits in another. (Para 10 )
Judgment
T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. : The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a sum of Rs. 1,23,719 paid by the respondent as commission to its managing agents on account of profits of its Karachi Branch can be allowed as deduction against the Indian profits. The respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is carrying on business in cotton. Its head office is in Bombay, and it maintains a branch at Karachi for purchasing cotton for shipment to Bombay or export direct to other places. Separate accounts are maintained and separate profits and loss statements are prepared for the business at Bombay and at Karachi. By an agreement dated 22-12-1947 the respondent appointed Messrs Parakh Cotton Company Ltd., as its managing agents, and under Cl. 4 of the agreement, the remuneration payable to them was fixed at 20 per cent. of the net annual profits.
2. During the accounting year 1-10-1947 to 30-9-1948 the respondent made a total profit of Rs. 15,63,504, of which Rs. 9,44,905 was earned in the business at Bombay and Rs. 6,18,599 at Karachi. On this, the commission payable to the managing agents as per Cl. 4 of the agreement was Rs. 3,12,699. The respondent debited a sum of Rs. 1,88,980 out of this amount in the profit and loss statement of the Bombay head office, being the 20 per cent. apportionable to the profits shown therein, and deducting this sum out of the total profits of Rs. 9,44,905 showed a sum of Rs. 7,55,925 as the net profits of the business at Bombay. It likewise debited a sum of Rs. 1,23,719 to the profit and loss statement of the Karachi branch, and deducting it out of the total profits of Rs. 6,18,599 earned by the branch, showed a sum of Rs. 4,94,879 as its net profits.
3. The respondent is resident and ordinarily resident in India, and therefore it would be chargeable to income-tax on its total world income. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer took into account the profits earned both in India and in Karachi, deducted therefrom the entire commission paid to the managing agents, and after making certain adjustments, which are not material for the present purpose, determined the total income at Rs. 13,09,375. The correctness of this figure is not now in dispute.
4. As part of this income was earned in Karachi, that would also be chargeable to income-tax in Pakistan. To avoid the hardship arising from the same income being subjected to taxation twice over in the two Dominions. S. 49-AA of the Income-tax Act, as it stood before it was replaced by S. 49(b), provided that the Central Government may enter into an agreement with Pakistan... for the avoidance of double taxation of income, profits and gains under this Act". And in exercise of the powers conferred under this section, a notification was issued on 10-12-1947 providing for relief being granted against double taxation of income in the manner and to the extent provided therein. The Income-tax Officer having ascertained the total income assessable to tax under the law of this country at Rs. 13,09,375 proceeded to determined the extent of the relief to be awarded to the respondent in respect of the profits earned in Karachi and chargeable under the law of Pakistan. For this purpose, he accepted as correct the sum of Rs.4,94,879 which the respondent had shown as the net profits in the profit and loss statement for Karachi, and after making certain adjustments and deductions in accordance with Cl. 4 of the agreement and item 7(a) in the schedule annexed thereto, held that the amount in respect of which the respondent was entitled to abatement under the agreement was Rs,. 5,00,344.
5. The assessee preferred an appeal against this order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and contended that the Income-tax Officer was in error in taking Rs. 4,94,879 given in the profits and loss statement for Karachi as the profits of the Karachi branch, because this figure had been arrived at after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,23,71
