SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Union Co-operative Insurance Society (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (In both the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1052 and 1053 of l966,
D/- 23-3-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. R. J. Kolah, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Narain, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant (In both the appeals); Mr. R. M. Hazarnavis. Senior Advocate (Mr. S. K. Aiyar, Advocate and Mr. S. P. Nayyar Advocate for Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate with him), for Respondent (In both the appeals).

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, R.J.KOLAG, R.M.Hajarnavis, R.N.SACH, Ravindra Narayan, S.K.AIYAR, S.P.NAIR

Bonus paid to policyholders by an insurance company is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company and is, therefore, admissible as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Insurance business - Deduction of bonus paid to policy-holders - Whether admissible - Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Ss. 11, 15, 21, 22 - Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), Ss. 10 (2) (xv), 10 (7), Rule 6 of Schedule.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, an insurance company, paid bonus to its policyholders under a scheme formulated by it. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of the bonus amount from the assessee's income on the ground that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the payments were not mere appropriation of profits, and were admissible as permissible deductions on the ground of business expediency.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the bonus paid to the policyholders was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee company and was, therefore, admissible as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income. The Court further held that the estimated liability for the bonus was not a contingent liability and that the payment of bonus was not a rebate within the meaning of Section 41 of the Insurance Act.

Issues: Whether the bonus paid to the policyholders was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee company and was, therefore, admissible as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the bonus paid to the policyholders was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee company and was, therefore, admissible as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income. The Court further held that the estimated liability for the bonus was not a contingent liability and that the payment of bonus was not a rebate within the meaning of Section 41 of the Insurance Act.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the assessee company was held entitled to deduct the bonus paid to the policyholders from its taxable income.

Judgement

SHAH,J.:- The Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., hereinafter called the assessee Company -carries on general insurance business. Bye-law 52 of the assessee Company provides that bonus shall be paid on those policies (not being Reinsurance Policies) on certain conditions, the following of which are relevant :

"1. That the premium on that policy is more than Rs. 5/-.

2. That there has been no claim on that policy.

3. That the policy was insured during the year for which bonus is declared.

4. That the bonus amount will be paid only if the policy is renewed on expiration and the bonus amount may be credited towards premium under the renewed policy".

2. In proceedings for assessment of the income of the assessee Company for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the assessee Company claimed allowance of Rs. 29,615 and Rs. 44,920 respectively, paid under the bonus scheme under Bye-law 52 in the computation of its taxable income. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim holding that payment of bonus was made after its profits for the relevant years were determined and on that account it was only case of appropriation of profit after it was earned, and that in any event since the assessee Company had not charged the bonus paid to the revenue account and had merely made a provision in the appropriation account it could not claim relief after modifying the accounts in Form B to Schedule II of the Insurance Act, 1938, submitted to the Controller of Insurance. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the payments were not mere appropriation of profits, and were admissible as permissible deductions on the ground of business expediency. The following question submitted for determination of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay -

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 29,615 and Rs. 44,920 paid to certain policy holders in the calendar years 1956 and 1957 respectively by the assessee Company were admissible deductions for the purpose of computation of its taxable income for the assessment years l957-58 and 1958-59"

was answered in the negative.

3. The High Court held that since the amounts paid were not entered in the profit and loss account in Form B Schedule II to the Insurance Act and were also not regarded by the assessee Company as expenditure charged on profits, they were not admissible as deductions in the computation of the taxable income of the assessee Company under Rule 6 of the Schedule to the Income-tax Act. With special leave, the assessee Company has appealed to this Court.

4. By Section 10 (7) of the Income-tax Act the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable thereon are computable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18, in accordance with rules contained in the Schedule to the Act. Rule 6 of the Schedule which prescribes the method of computation of taxable income of insurance business (other than life insurance) provides :

"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 Section 10 of this Act be allowed for in computing the profits and gains of a business ***"

By Section 15 of the Insurance Act, 4 of 1938 every insurer is directed to furnish to the Controller of Insurance, among others, the audited accounts and statements, referred to in Section 11 of that Act. By Section 11 (1) of the Insurance Act every insurer is directed to prepare at the expiration of each calendar year with reference to that year, the following accounts and statements in respect of all insurance bu


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top