SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., RANGANATH MISRA, J.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Appellants
Versus
South Arcot Dist, Co-op. Marketing society Ltd., Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1839 (NT) of 1975, Dated 25-1-1989.
Madras Cooperative Societies Act – Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 – Section 14 – Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 80 – Hold a stock of ammonium sulphate - Respondent assessee is a co-operative society registered Madras Cooperative Societies Act assessee entered into an agreement with State Government during previous year relevant to assessment whereby assessee agreed to hold a stock of ammonium sulphate belonging to, and on behalf of State Government and to store it in godowns which admittedly belonged to assessee – Under agreement assessee was required further to take all necessary steps to enable such stocking and storage of fertiliser including taking delivery of stock at rail-head and transporting it to godowns – Held, Regard to object with which provision has been enacted it is apparent- that a liberal construction should be given to language of provision and that circumstances of present case it must be regarded that what assessee did was to let out its godowns for the purpose of storing ammonium sulphate handed over to it by State Government remaining services performed by assessee were merely incidental to essential responsibility of using godowns for storage of that stock – It is true that a certain sum was paid to assessee and described as a commission for services performed by it but having regard to totality of circumstances and to true substance of agreement it seems to us plain that amount was paid merely by way of remuneration for use of godowns assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed by it – Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
PATHAK, CJI.:- This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras is directed against the judgment of the High Court disposing of a reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
2. The respondent assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act. The assessee entered into an agreement with the State Government during the previous year ending 30th June, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, whereby the assessee agreed to hold a stock of ammonium sulphate belonging to, and on behalf of, the State Government, and to store it in godowns which admittedly belonged to the assessee. Under the agreement, the assessee was required further to take all necessary steps to enable such stocking and storage of the fertiliser, including taking delivery of the stock at the rail-head and transporting it to the godowns. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee received a sum of Rs. 31,316/ -, on this account, the amount being described as a commission.
3. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee claimed exemption from tax under S. 14(3)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in respect of the said sum of Rs. 31,316/-. The Income-tax Officer denied the exemption, and on appeal ,.the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the denial. But on second appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the various terms of the agreement with the State Government constituted consideration for letting the godowns, and that any servicing done in that connection represented an insignificant part of the entire transaction. In the result, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the exemption claimed by the assessee. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions to the High Court of Madras:-
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 31,316/- received by the assessee Society from the Madras Government under an agreement for stocking and distribution of ammonium sulphate was exempt under S. 14(3)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?
2. Whether, on the construction of the agreement between the assessee and the State Government, the Appellate Tribunals finding that the receipts were mostly for letting out the godowns and that the servicing was An insignificant portion of the whole amount is reasonable and consistent with the material on record?"
4. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and answered the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
5. We have considered the matter carefully and to our mind it seems clear that the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are right in the view adopted by them. As was observed by the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II v. Ahmedabad Maskati Cloth Dealers Cooperative Warehouses Society Ltd., while considering the analogous provision of S. 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provision for exemption was intended to encourage co-operative societies to construct warehouses which were likely to be useful in the development of the, rural economy and exemption was granted from income-tax in respect of income derived from the letting of such warehouses for the storage of fertilisers and other related commodities concerned with co-operative marketing. Having regard to the object with which the provision has been enacted, it is apparent- that a liberal construction should be given to the language of the provision and that, therefore, in the circumstances of the present case it must be regarded that what the assessee did was to let out its godowns for the purpose of storing the ammonium sulphate handed over to it by the State Government. The remaining services performed by the assessee were merely incidental to the essential responsibility of using the godowns for the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.