1. Gratuity paid to a retiring employee for past services — Claim for deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act — Dispute over nature of expenditure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 407
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th December, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ .
Gordon woodroffee Leather Manufacturing Co., Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer Advocate and Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri Senior Advocate (Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, with him), for Respondent. 1362
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, P.D.MENON, R.CANAPATHY IYER
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, P.D.MENON, R.CANAPATHY IYER
Important Points
A voluntary gratuity payment for past services is not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act unless it is part of a practice affecting salary, an employee's expectation, or a matter of commercial expediency to facilitate the business.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 10(2)(xv) - Deductibility of gratuity payment - Expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - A payment of gratuity to a retiring employee in recognition of past services, without any prior scheme or expectation, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 10(2)(xv) unless it is shown to be in the future interest of the business or a matter of commercial expediency. (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Commercial Expediency - To qualify as a deductible business expenditure, a payment must be made as a matter of practice which affects the quantum of salary, or there must be an expectation by the employee of receiving such gratuity, or the sum must be expended to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An assessee company paid a gratuity to a retiring officer in recognition of his long and valuable services. The payment was voluntary, as the company had no pension scheme, and there was no evidence that the employee had accepted a lower salary in expectation of such a payment. The amount was claimed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, but was disallowed by the tax authorities and the High Court on the ground that it was a capital expenditure and not incurred for the purpose of the business.
Findings of Court:
The payment was a voluntary recognition of past services and not made in pursuance of any scheme, nor was it an amount the recipient expected. It was not found to be a matter of commercial expediency or intended to facilitate the carrying on of the business.
Issues: Whether a voluntary gratuity payment made to a retiring employee in recognition of past services is an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a gratuity payment to be deductible, it must be established that the payment was a matter of practice affecting the quantum of salary, was expected by the employee, or was made on the grounds of commercial expediency to facilitate the business. A voluntary payment made solely in recognition of past services does not constitute expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Commercial Expediency - To qualify as a deductible business expenditure, a payment must be made as a matter of practice which affects the quantum of salary, or there must be an expectation by the employee of receiving such gratuity, or the sum must be expended to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An assessee company paid a gratuity to a retiring officer in recognition of his long and valuable services. The payment was voluntary, as the company had no pension scheme, and there was no evidence that the employee had accepted a lower salary in expectation of such a payment. The amount was claimed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, but was disallowed by the tax authorities and the High Court on the ground that it was a capital expenditure and not incurred for the purpose of the business.
Findings of Court:
The payment was a voluntary recognition of past services and not made in pursuance of any scheme, nor was it an amount the recipient expected. It was not found to be a matter of commercial expediency or intended to facilitate the carrying on of the business.
Issues: Whether a voluntary gratuity payment made to a retiring employee in recognition of past services is an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a gratuity payment to be deductible, it must be established that the payment was a matter of practice affecting the quantum of salary, was expected by the employee, or was made on the grounds of commercial expediency to facilitate the business. A voluntary payment made solely in recognition of past services does not constitute expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether voluntary gratuity paid for past services constitutes expenditure incurred for commercial expediency or as an incentive to employees, thereby qualifying as a deductible business expense. (Para 5 )
3. Payment made solely for past services without a prior scheme or expectation does not facilitate business operations or constitute commercial expediency. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. Gratuity is deductible if paid per established practice affecting salary, based on employee expectation, or as commercial expediency to facilitate business conduct. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 8 )
6. When is a gratuity payment deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act?
A gratuity is deductible if it is paid as a matter of practice that affects the quantum of salary, if there was a reasonable expectation by the employee to receive it, or if the expenditure was incurred as a matter of commercial expediency to facilitate the carrying on of the business. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Does a voluntary payment made in recognition of long and faithful service qualify as a business expenditure?
No, a voluntary payment made solely in recognition of past services, without a pre-existing scheme, practice, or object of facilitating the business, is not considered expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. (Para 4 , 6 )
8. How does the existence of a pension or gratuity practice influence the deductibility of such payments?
Where a company has a known practice of granting pensions or gratuities that leads employees to accept lower salaries in expectation of such payments, the expenditure is generally admissible as a trade expense. (Para 6 )
Judgment
KAPUR, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appellant is the assessee and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the question raised is as to the applicability of S. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act to a gratuity paid by the appellant to one of its officers on his retirement from service.
2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1950-51. M/s. Gordon Woodroffee & Co. (Madras) Ltd., was incorporated as a private limited company in 1922 and became the Managing Agent of a public limited company M/s. Gordon Woodroffee Leather Manufacturing Company Ltd., which is the assessee. One J. H. Philips was employed in the Managing Agent Company from 1922 to 1935 and from 1935 he became an employee of the appellant company and became its Director from 1940. On March 22, 1949, he wrote a letter to the appellant company expressing his intention to resign from the Board of the Company as from April 4, 1949 upon his retirement from the employment of the company and requested that his resignation be accepted. On March 24, 1949, the Board of Directors of the appellant Company passed a resolution that his resignation be accepted and in appreciation of his long and valuable services to the Company he be paid a gratuity of Rs. 50,000/- out of which the appellant Company was to pay Rs. 40,000/-. and the Managing Agent Company the balance of Rs. 10,000/-. On April 4, 1949 this resolution of the Board of Directors was confirmed, on the same date a resolution to the same effect was passed at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company and before the end of its accounting year i.e., October 31, 1949, this amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to Mr. J. H. Philips.
3. This amount was claimed as a deduction under S. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act which reads :-
Section 10 (2) : "Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely :
......................................................
............. ................ ...... ......... .......
(xv) any expenditure (not being an allowance of the nature described in any of the clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive, and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation."
The amount was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the appellant Company had no pension scheme; the payment was voluntary and that the entry in the assessee s books clearly indicated it to be a capital payment. Against this order the appellant Company took an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It held that according to the resolution the gratuity was paid "for long and valuable services to the Company"; that there was nothing to indicate that Mr. J. H. Philips had accepted a lower salary in expectation of getting a gratuity at, the end of is service; at there was no such practice in the appellant Company and that during the course of his service he was being remunerated at a graduated scale of salary and a commission of it 2 1/2 on the profits; that there was no "expectancy" that at the end of the service there would be a recompense for faithful and efficient service; that he had been suitably rewarded by being given a commission on the profits "in order to whip up his enthusiasm". It was also mentioned that in the books of the appellant Company the amount had not been debited in the profit and loss account but was debited to the appropriation account thereby indicating that it was an extra payment or a payment made in the nature of a capital expense. Taking all these circumstances into consideration the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was difficult to hold that the expenditure was not in the nature of a capital expenditure or t
