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

1975 Supreme(SC) 237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ .
The Commissioner of Income-tax Nagpur, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No, 1877 of 1970,
D/- 25-7-1975.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. V.S. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. E.B. Ahuja and S.P. Nayar, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. M.C. Chagla & Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocates, (Mr. A.K. Chitale, Mrs. A.K. Verma and M/s. Ravinder Narian J.B/. Dadachanji and O.C. Mathur, Advocates with them), for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.K.CHITALE, A.K.VERMA, B.B.Ahuja, B.SEN, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.CHAGLA, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.P.NAIR, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:

Indian Income Tax Act - Section 66 (1) - Assessment - Liability of Payment of Tax - Whether the inference of the Tribunal that profit of Rupees arising from sale of shares of the Gwalior Rayon Silk is assessable as business profit is correct? - Assessee which was interested in Rayon Company and which had already purchased 1,000 ordinary shares, subscribed for shares of the new issue and paid as application money, and paid as final, call money - These purchases were authorised by a resolution of the assessee - Assessee sold a part of its stock shares at a profit - For assessment year Income Tax Officer sought to assess amount on basis that it was profit accruing to assessee from an adventure in nature of business - Assessee contended that the amount represented capital gain as the shares were purchased by way of investment and that same cannot be taxed as revenue receipt - Income Tax Officer rejected contention - Assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - He confirmed the order - Assessee then went up in appeal before Appellate Tribunal – Held, Whole conclusion of High Court is based on unwarranted assumption of facts which must have been taken from argument of assessee before the High Court, danger of failing to recognize that the jurisdiction of High Court in these matters is only advisory and that conclusion of facts are conclusion on which High Court is to exercise the advisory jurisdiction is illustrated by this case - Respondent contended that only question to be asked and answered is; What was dominant intention of the assessee when it purchased shares? If dominant intention was to carry on an adventure in the nature of business, the profit can be taxed; otherwise not - In other words, question is whether assessee purchased shares in a commercial spirit with a view to make profit by it trading in them - Tribunal found, after taking into account all relevant circumstances that the dominant intention of the assessee was to make profit by resale of the shares and not to make an investment - Appeal allowed.

Judgement

MATHEW, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a reference made at the instance of the assessee M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (here- inafter referred to as the "Tribunal ) under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The question referred was:

"Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the profit of Rupees 2,13,150/- arising from the sale of 1,58,200 shares of the Gwalior Rayon Silk .Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd., is assessable as business profit is correct?"

2. When the reference came up for hearing before the High Court, the High Court found that although the Tribunal was of the view that the question referred was a mixed question of law and fact it had not stated all the facts and circumstances on which it based its conclusion that the profit of Rs. 2,13,150/- was a business profit and so the Court called for a supplementary statement of the case and a supplementary statement of the case was submitted to the Court by the Tribunal.

3. The material facts in the statement of the case were as follows. The assessee is a public limited company and it is controlled by the Birlas. The assessee applied for certain shares of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company Limited (hereinatfer referred to as the "Rayon Company"), also a company controlled by the Birlas This company was floated on 25-8-1947 with a paid up capital of Rupees 5 lakhs made up of 50,000 ordinary shares of Rs.10/- each. In the year ending 31-12-1951, the Rayon Company issued certain new shares for paid up capital of Rs. 1,17,25,000/made up as follows:

Rs.

7,60,000 Ordinary shares of Rs. 10- each fully paid up 76,00,000

1,50,000 Ordinary shares of Rs.10 each with paid up at Rs. 2/8- each 3,75,000

1,50,000 6 per cent preference shares of Rs. 100/-each paid up at Rs. 25 each (re-deemable at par at the company option after a specified date by giving one year s notice) 37,50,000

4. The assessee which was interested in the Rayon Company and which had already purchased 1,000 ordinary shares, subscribed for 3,49,000 shares of the new issue and paid Rs. 8,72,500/- as application money on the 25th and 27th February, 1951, and paid Rs. 26,17,500/- as final, call money on 10-8-1951. These purchases were authorised by a resolution of the assessee dated 7-2-1951. The assessee sold a part of its stock viz.,1,58,200 shares at a profit of Rs. 2,13,150/-.

5. For the assessment year 1956-57 (accounting year ending on 31-3-1956), the Income Tax Officer sought to assess the amount on the basis that it was profit accruing to the assessee from an adventure in the nature of business. The assessee contended that the amount represented capital gain as the shares were purchased by way of investment and that the same cannot be taxed as revenue receipt. The Income Tax Officer rejected the contention. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He confirmed the order. The assessee then went up in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion, after considering all the circumstances, that the transaction was in the nature of a business adventure and that profits were liable to be taxed. The reasons which induced the Tribunal to come to this conclusion were: The assessee was authorised by clauses 12, 13, 28 and 29 of paragraph 3 of its Memorandum of Association to buy and sell shares; there were specific resolutions of the Company authorising a director of the assessee purchase and sell these shares; the assessee had included the profit of Rs. 2,13, 150/- in the profit and loss account without taking it to any reserve account or specifically set it apart for any other purpose; the assessee had purchased the shares from borrowed funds and not with money readily available to it; the assessee did not make the sales on account of any pressing necessity to meet existing liabiliti



























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