Back
1949 Supreme(SC) 36
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD GREENE, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT
MOHANLAL HARGOVIND OF JUBBULPORE, MESSRS - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR, NAGPUR - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Nagpur.
Decided On : July 28, 1949.
Solicitors for appellants: Hy. S. L. Polak & Co.
Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, High Commissioner for India.
Expenditure incurred to acquire raw materials for a business, even through contracts granting exclusive rights to collect them from land, is revenue expenditure provided no interest in the land or trees is acquired and the expenditure is for the current operation of the business.
Headnote:(A) Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 10, sub-section 2 (xii) - Expenditure incurred for the purpose of business - Distinction between capital and revenue expenditure - Expenditure for acquiring raw materials - Payment made under contracts for the right to collect and remove leaves from forests for use in manufacturing cigarettes - Whether such expenditure is capital or revenue in nature - If the contracts grant no interest in land or trees and are simply for the acquisition of raw materials for the business, such expenditure is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
(B) Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Expenditure to be construed in a business sense - If the expenditure is part of the process of profit earning and represents the cost of raw materials, it is a current expenditure - The fact that the right to collect materials is exclusive or involves entry onto land does not convert revenue expenditure into capital expenditure if the primary purpose is the acquisition of the material itself.
Facts of the case:
The appellants, manufacturers and vendors of country-made cigarettes, entered into short-term contracts with forest owners for the right to collect and remove leaves used as raw material in their products. A sum was paid by installments as consideration for these grants. The tax authorities disallowed the deduction of this expenditure, characterizing it as capital expenditure. The High Court upheld this view, treating the right to collect the leaves as an interest in land.
Findings of Court:
The contracts were merely for the supply of raw materials and granted no interest in the land or the trees. The rights to enter and collect were ancillary to the acquisition of the leaves. Such expenditure is revenue in nature, similar to purchasing raw materials from a shop.
Issues: Whether the expenditure incurred in acquiring the right to collect raw materials from forests under short-term contracts constitutes capital expenditure or revenue expenditure under the relevant tax legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred to acquire raw materials for a manufacturing business is revenue expenditure if it does not create an enduring asset or grant an interest in land. The nature of the business and the substance of the transaction are paramount; where the payment is for the material itself and the associated rights of access are merely incidental, it is a current business expense.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
taxation
-
income tax
-
business expenditure
- capital vs revenue expenditure
-
business expenditure
-
income tax
Judgement
Appeal (No. 10 of 1948) from a judgment of the High Court at Nagpur (December 8, 1944) delivered on a reference made to it under s. 66, sub-s. 1, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay.
This appeal raised a short question as to the application of s. 10, sub-s. 2 (xii), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of assessments on the appellants for the years 1940-1 and 1941-2. That paragraph provided that in computing profits or gains of a business for the purpose of income tax an allowance was to be made for " any expenditure " (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal " expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and " exclusively for the purpose of such business . . . . "
The relevant facts, which are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, were as follows. The appellants carried on business at several places in the Central Provinces of India as manufacturers and vendors of country made cigarettes, which were known as bidis. Those cigarettes were composed of tobacco contained or rolled in leaves of a tree known as tendu leaves, which fulfilled a corresponding function in the finished cigarette to that played by a cigarette paper. The appellants obtained the tendu leaves which they required by entering into a number of contracts with the Government and other owners of forests. Two of those contracts, which were taken as typical of the rest, were included in the Record, one relating to a government forest and one to a forest belonging to the Rewa state. It was important to examine the terms of those documents. The former was dated September 5, 1939, and was made between the Divisional Forest officer on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council and the appellants representative described as the " forest contractor/ Clause 1 identified the subject-matter of the contract, which was described as " the forest produce sold and " purchased under the agreement/ as that specified in sch. 1 in the " contract area " therein indicated. By cl. 2 the quantity of the forest produce was defined as all the said produce " which may now exist or may come into existence in the “contract area which the forest contractor may remove " from the said area .... during the period from the 5th day " of September, 1939, to the 30th day of June, 1941." Schedule IA provided that " the contractor shall commence " his work before the .... day of .... 193 , and shall, " to the satisfaction of the office empowered to execute the " contract on behalf of Government, make continuous and " adequate progress throughout the term of the contract/ In that provision the dates, by an obvious oversight, were left in blank, but the date of commencement could not be later than December 31, 1939. In the second of the two agreements which, with certain minor differences, was substantially in the same form, the period of the operations was October 1, 1938, to June 30, 1941, and the work was to be commenced on October 1, 1938. That agreement recited an application for the grant of " the contract of collecting " and removing " tendu leaves. The grant was a grant of the right to collect and remove them from the area described. In the case of each contract a sum payable by instalments was fixed as the consideration for the grant. In the former contract the contractor was allowed to coppice small tendu plants a few months in advance to obtain good leaves and to pollard tendu trees a few months in advance to obtain better bigger leaves.
The sum paid by the appellants under the contracts and claimed by them to be a permissible deduction under s. 10, sub-s. 2 (xii), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, and admitted to have been made “wholly and exclusively” for the purpose "of the business of the appellants was disallowed by the Income Tax officer. His order was confirmed successively by the Appellate Assistant Commission
