SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th January, 1961
J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Dharamvir Dhir, Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 448 and 449 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellant. (In both the Appeals) M/s. A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Respondent (In both the Appeals).
INCOME TAX - Deduction - Expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning profits - Whether payments made to a trust under an agreement for financing a business are allowable deductions under S. 10 (2) (iii) or S. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, an employee, entered into an agreement with a trust for financing his business. The trust agreed to advance a sum upto Rs. 11/2 lacs, the contract was to be "carried in accordance of the policy" settled between the assessee and the trust, the trust could withdraw its money at any time and to stop further advances; the trust was not to be liable for any losses; the assessee was to send monthly returns to the trust and the seventh clause was "that in consideration of the trust having agreed to finance my said contract business up to Rs. 11/2 lacs I have agreed to pay to trust interest on the amount from time to time owing to the trust in respect of the monies to be advanced as above at the rate of 6 p. c. per annum in addition to a sum equivalent to 11/16th of the net profits to a sum equivalent to 11/16th of the net profits of this business of mine."
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal and the High Court found that the payments were not for the purpose of the business and that taking into account the nature of the accounts, the nature of the payments and the relationship between the parties, it could not be said that the amounts were wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business and therefore rejected the claim.
Issues: Whether the payments made to the trust under the agreement were allowable deductions under S. 10 (2) (iii) or S. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the payments made to the trust were allowable deductions under S. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act. The Court observed that the payments were made for the purpose of earning profits and were therefore deductible expenditure. The Court further observed that the Pondicherry Railway case, 58 Ind App 239, did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the judgments and orders of the High Court were set aside.
Judgment
KAPUR, J. : These appeals by the assessee are brought against two judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Income-tax references under S. 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act answering the questions in the negative and against the assessee. The questions were:
(1) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case Rs. 72,963-12-0 was a revenue expenditure deductible under section 10 (2) (iii) or under section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?"
(2) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case Rs. 76,526-1-3 was a revenue expenditure deductible under section 10 (2) (iii) or under section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?"
2. The facts of the appeals are these : The appellant was an employee of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. and for each of the accounting years relating to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 his salary was Rs. 10,572/-. He also had an income of Rs. 500 from shares in certain joint stock companies. On December 20, 1945, he entered into a contract with Bengal Nagpur Coal Company Ltd. for raising coal from Bhaggatdih Colliery, Jharia and actually started his business from January 1, 1946. Evidently he did not have the requisite funds for his business and therefore in order to finance it, he entered into an agreement with the Mohini Thopar Charitable Trust on February 25, 1946. The trust is a public charitable trust, which was created by Lala Karam Chand Thapar, who constituted himself as the Managing Trustee. The relevant terms of this agreement between the appellant and the trust were that the trust was to advance a sum upto Rs. 11/2 lacs, the contract was to be "carried in accordance of the policy" settled between the appellant and the trust, the trust could withdraw its money at any time and to stop further advances; the trust was not to be liable for any losses; the appellant was to send monthly returns to the trust and the seventh clause was "that in consideration of the trust having agreed to finance my said contract business up to Rs. 11/2 lacs I have agreed to pay to trust interest on the amount from time to time owing to the trust in respect of the monies to be advanced as above at the rate of 6 p. c. per annum in addition to a sum equivalent to 11/16th of the net profits to a sum equivalent to 11/16th of the net profits of this business of mine."
3. In pursuance of this agreement the appellant, besides interest, paid to the trust the sum of Rs. 72,963 for the first accounting year and Rs. 76,526-1-3 for the second accounting year corresponding to years of assessment 1947-48, 1948-49 and claimed these amounts as allowable deductions under S. 10 (2) (iii) or under S. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income tax Act. The amount of interest has been allowed but the claim in regard to the other sums paid was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the agreement was not genuine and bona fide and that it was not prompted by ordinary business considerations. The matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. An appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed and so was an application for reference under S. 66(1), but the High Court directed the Tribunal to state the case on the questions set out above. For the two assessment years the question was the same excepting for the amounts claimed as allowable deductions.
4. In its order dated April 4, 1955, the Appellate Tribunal had found that the payments were not for the purpose of the business and that taking into account the nature of the accounts, the nature of the payments and the relationship between the parties, it could not be said that the amounts were wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business and therefore rejected the claim. In the statement of the case the Tribunal has said that the average amount which had been advanced by the trust to the appellant in the first year was Rs. 18,100 and the payments m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.