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

1970 Supreme(SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Appellant
Versus
The Mysore Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1760 of 1967, D/- 30-4-1970.

Advocates:
A.K.VERMA, B.D.SHARMA, B.SEN, J.B.DADACHAN, N.C.CHAGLA, S.K.AIYAR

Headnote:

Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 58K, 10 (1) and 10 (2) (xv) - Employees Provident Funds Act - Section 17 - Manufacture and sale of yarn and cloth – Employees - Provident Funds - Appeal by certificate - Respondent Company which is assessee carries on business of manufacture and sale of yarn and cloth - In it started a Provident Fund for benefit of monthly rated employees and this fund was called "The Staff Provident Fund" - Subsequently another fund was started known as "Workmen Provident Funds" - These funds were not recognised under provisions of Chapter IXA of Income-tax Act, 1922 employees and assessee made contributions to two funds from time to time - Assessee came within first schedule to Provident Funds Act and therefore it applied under Section 17 for exemption from operation of provisions of that Act - A provisional exemption was given - Whether Provident Funds Act and Scheme thereunder can be said to create a trust in sense in which that word is used in S. 58K (1) merely because Board managing Scheme was called Board of Trustees – Held, transfer was not made to trustees in trust for employees participating in fund - In other words employees of assessee alone did not participate in that fund - Members of Board did not become trustees in legal sense - They were appointed to administer fund which vested in them only for purpose of administration - It could well be said that essential ingredient of a trust, namely, reposing of confidence by author of trust in trustees for purpose of carrying out his desires, wishes and directions and acceptance of those obligations by trustees was absent in present case - Amount in question had been spent and paid out in relevant year of accounting, and was therefore allowable as expenditure incurred exclusively for purpose of business - It is not suggested that it was incurred for any other purpose - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

GROVER, J. : This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Bombay High Court in an Income-tax reference. The respondent Company which is the assessee carries on business of the manufacture and sale of yarn and cloth in Bangalore. In 1914 it started a Provident Fund for the benefit of the monthly rated employees and this fund was called "The Staff Provident Fund". Subsequently another fund was started known as the "Workmen Provident Funds". These funds were not recognised under the provisions of Chapter IXA of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). The employees and the assessee made contributions to the two funds from time to time. The Employees Provident Funds Act (to be referred to as the Provident Funds Act) came into force on 31st October, 1952. The amounts standing to the credit of the two funds on that date so far as they are referable to the contributions by the Company stood as follows :

(1) Staff Provident Fund : Company s contributions upto 31-10-1952 89,605-9-2

Proportionate interest thereon 19,596-8-7 1,09,202-1-2

(2) Workmen s Provident Fund : Company s contribution upto 31-10-952 1,83,190-13-2

Proportionate interest thereon. 9, 379-2-5 1,92,569-15-10

3,01,772-1-7

2. The assessee came within the first schedule to the Provident Funds Act and therefore it applied under Section 17 for exemption from the operation of the provisions of that Act. A provisional exemption was given on 1st July, 1953. The assessee was, however, informed that pending the grant of exemption it need not make any payment of the accumulations to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, as was enjoined under the Provident Funds Act. Following some correspondence between the Commissioner and the assessee the latter sought for the cancellation of exemption by means of a letter dated 11th July, 1955. The Provident Fund Commissioner cancelled the exemption granted under section 17 of the Provident Funds Act and required the assessee to comply with all its provisions and the Scheme framed thereunder and further to transfer all the provident fund s accumulations to the Employees Provident Fund immediately. In accordance with the communication from the Commissioner, the assessee transferred an amount which included a sum of Rs. 3,01,772-1-7 which represented the assessee contribution to the two funds upto 31st October, 1952. The assessee claimed deduction in the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 on account of the transfer of the amount of Rs. 3,01,772-1-7 to the Provident Fund Commissioner. The Income Tax Officer disallowed this claim on the ground that the amount in question was allowable to be treated as capital expenditure under the provisions of section 58K of the Act. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but it failed. The assessee appealed the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the fund to Trustees which came within the scope of Section 58K of the Act and therefore the amount was not deductible nor could the deductions be allowed under Section 10 (1) or Section 10 (2) (xv). The assessee sought reference and the following two questions were referred :

(1) Whether the provisions of Section 58K of the Income-tax Act apply to the transfer of the sum of Rupees 3,01,772-1-7 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner?

(2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the sum of Rs. 3,01,882-1-7 is allowable as deduction in arriving at the commercial profits under Section 10 (1) or is an allowable deduction under Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act in the computation of the assessable business profits.

3-4. The High Court examined in detail the provisions contained in Chapter IXA of the Act. It was observed that the scheme of Section 58K in that Chapter was that though an employer could not claim any allowance at the time he transferred his own accumulated contributions to the Provident Fund to the trustees, he could claim exemp















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