1985 Supreme(Raj) 736
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, S.N.Bhargava, JJ.
Pannalal Kothari - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income - Respondent
D.B. Income tax Reference Application Nos. 43, 43-A, 43-B and 43-C of 1976.
Decided On : 9-10-1985
Important Points
Subject
Income Tax - Managing director's remuneration
Headnote
INCOME TAX - Managing director's remuneration - Whether personal income of the managing director or income of the Hindu undivided family - Held, personal income of the managing director.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, Pannalal Kothari, was appointed as the managing director of M/s. Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills, Beawar, for a period of five years. The company paid him a remuneration of Rs. 2,000 per month, which was credited in the books of M/s. Rai Bahadur Seth Kundanmal Kothari, Beawar, a firm consisting of the assessee and his brothers. The aggregate of the remuneration thus credited was transferred to the profit and loss account of the firm and divided equally amongst the partners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the managing director's remuneration was the personal income of the assessee and not the income of the Hindu undivided family. The court applied the test laid down in Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT, (1970) 78 ITR 33, and held that the remuneration was received by the assessee in his individual capacity for specific services to be rendered by him to the company. The court also held that the brothers had not made any investment in the company and the managing director's remuneration was not fixed on account of a return from such investment.
Issues: Whether the managing director's remuneration was the personal income of the assessee or the income of the Hindu undivided family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the managing director's remuneration was the personal income of the assessee and not the income of the Hindu undivided family. The court applied the test laid down in Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT, (1970) 78 ITR 33, and held that the remuneration was received by the assessee in his individual capacity for specific services to be rendered by him to the company. The court also held that the brothers had not made any investment in the company and the managing director's remuneration was not fixed on account of a return from such investment.
Final Decision: The court answered the question of law referred to it in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
| Assessment year | Amount |
|
| Rs. |
| 1962-63 | 12,229 |
| 1963-64 | 12,974 |
| 1964-65 | 12,042 |
| 1965-66 | 14,451 |