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

1972 Supreme(SC) 409

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
M. K. Brothers (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
C. I. T. Kanpur, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1969, D/- 29-8-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. T. A. Ramachandran, R. N., Sachthey and S. P. Nayar Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, T.A.Ramachandran

Headnote:

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 – Section 66(1) - Income tax – Cotton mill liable for tax -Appellant is a private limited company and one is one of its directors - As per agreement appellant was appointed with effect sole selling agent of Kanpur Cotton Mills for sale of yarn and cloth manufactured by the said mills - Cotton Mills is owned by the British India Corporation - Prior to the appellant s appointment Sharma & Co., a partnership firm, was functioning as the sole, selling agent of Kanpur Cotton Mills - Amount due by Sharma & Co. to Cotton Mills as inclusive of interest - Letter was addressed on behalf of Sharma & Co. to Managing Director of BIC stating that an agreement had been entered into with said one whereby Sharma & Co. had agreed to give up the sole selling agency of Cotton Mills - Whether on facts and circumstances of case, sum represented an expenditure under Section 10 – Held, learned counsel has referred to clause 13 of indenture reproduced above and has contended that appellant could make no claim to amount which had been retained by BIC - This fact, in court opinion, would make no material difference so far as true nature of that amount was concerned - Amount was deducted by BIC in pursuance of agreement entered into by appellant with BIC and Sharma & Co., according to which appellant had to pay that amount in the form of deduction out of its commission in consideration of being appointed the sole selling agents of Cotton Mills - Present is a case relating to application of income to discharge a liability incurred not in course of running the business but a liability undertaken for purpose of acquiring sole selling agency right which was indisputably an asset of capital nature - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- This appeal on certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court is directed against the judgment of that Court whereby it answered the following two questions referred to it under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellant and in favour of revenue :

"1) Whether on the facts and on a true and proper interpretation of the agreement dated 31-7-1956, between the British India Corporation and the appellant company, the letters of Sri Kailash Nath Agarwal, the letters of Managing directors, the sum of Rupees 43,333/- retained by the British India Corporation and adjusted by it to the credit of Sharma & Co. was the assessable income of the appellant company?

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 43,333/- represented an expenditure under Section 10 ?"

2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1956-57. The appellant is a private limited company and Kailash Nath Agarwal is one of its directors. As per agreement dated July 31, 1956 the appellant was appointed with effect from April 1, 1955 the sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills for the sale of yarn and cloth manufactured by the said mills. The Kanpur Cotton Mills is owned by the British India Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIC). Prior to the appellant s appointment Sharma & Co., a partnership firm, was functioning as the sole, selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. The amount due by Sharma & Co. to the Kanpur Cotton Mills as on March 21, 1955 was Rs. 8,39,350/15/6 inclusive of interest. On March 23, 1955 a letter was addressed on behalf of Sharma & Co. to the Managing Director of BIC stating that an agreement had been entered into with Kailash Nath Agarwal whereby Sharma & Co. had agreed to give up the sole selling agency of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. The Managing Director of BIC was requested to appoint Kailash Nath Agarwal or any firm or company formed by him for this purpose as the sole selling agent in place of Sharma & Co. Reference was also made in that letter to an agreement between Sharma & Co. and Kailash Nath Agarwal in the following words :

"As you will notice from the agreement with Sri Kailash Nath Agarwal we are entitled to receive one seventh of the commission due to the new selling agency or to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per annum whichever is greater till your dues with interest are fully liquidated. We do hereby authorise you to retain this amount thus becoming due to us out of the commission payable to the agency and adjust the same to our firm s account with the Corporation."

On the same day, i.e. March 23, 1955 Kailash Nath Agarwal addressed a letter to the Managing Director of BIC informing him of the agreement with Sharma & Co. and requesting for the grant of sole selling agency to the appellant. The letter concluded as follows :

"I hereby authorise you in case you are pleased to grant your sole selling agency to my said firm to retain one-seventh of our commission for adjustment in the account of M/s. Sharma & Co. with minimum of Rupees 50,000/- per annum till your dues against them are cleared with interest." The Managing Director of BIC later on that day, i.e. March 23, 1955 addressed a letter to Sharma & Co. accepting its resignation from the sole selling agency of the Kanpur Cotton Mills and about the appointment of Kailash Nath Agarwal or his nominee as the sole selling agent in succession to Sharma & Co. In regard to the liquidation of dues from Sharma & Co. the Managing Director of BIC wrote :

"As agreed between Shri Kailash Nath Agarwal and yourselves we shall deduct one seventh of the commission or Rs. 50,000/- whichever is greater out of the commission earned by the new sole selling agents and credit the same to your account with us till our dues against you standing today at Rs. 8,39,350/15/6 are completely liquidated with interest thereon at 6%."

On June 31, 1956 an indenture was executed by BIC and the appellant relating t












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
whatsapp-icon Back to top