Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/02/1989
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 915 1989 SCR (1) 586
1989 SCC (1) 747 JT 1989 (1) 258
1989 SCALE (1)340
ACT:
Income Tax Act, 1922: s. 14(3)(iii) Income Tax Act,
1961: S. 80P (2) (d) --Assessee--Apex Cooperative
Society--Cash security--Furnished to manufacturer Coopera-
tive Society under agency agreement--Loans advanced to
member cooperative societies for carrying on
business--Whether investments-Interest earned
thereon--Whether entitled to exemption from tax.
Words and Phrases: ’Investment’--Meaning of--s.
14(3)(iii), Income Tax Act, 1922.
HEADNOTE:
Clause (iii) of Section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1922 exempts interest and dividends derived by a cooperative
society from its investments with any other cooperative
society, from payment of tax.
The respondent-assessee, an apex body having as its
members various District Co-operative Societies, District,
Co-operative Banks and some Government and other co-opera-
tive Societies within the State of U.P., was appointed as
one of the wholesale dealers under clause (1) of the agency
agreement entered into with a co-operative sugar factory for
distribution of sugar produced by the latter during the
crushing seasons 1958-59 and 1959-60. Simultaneously with
the execution of the agreement it furnished a cash security
of Rs. Two lakhs to the manufacturer under clause (20) of
the said agreement for the period of two years, which was to
carry interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum.
In pursuance of a separate agreement entered into be-
tween it and the State Government the assessee undertook to
arrange for lifting, handling, storing and distributing to
the retailers the stock of sugar released by the Government
of India. In an yet another agreement entered into between
the assessee and member societies the latter undertook to
work as agents for the wholesale distribution of sugar in
their districts. Since they were not in a position to ar-
range the entire finance for the business the assessee
agreed to arrange for the same. The money thus invested in
the business was to earn interest at the rate of 6 per cent
per annum.
587
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
In the accounting year in question the Income Tax Offi-
cer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction, on
ground of statutory exemption under s. 14(3) of the Act, of
the amounts of interest received respectively from the
cooperative Sugar factory on the cash security deposit and
from member societies on temporary loans advanced for fi-
nancing business. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner
rejected assessee’s contention. The Appellate Tribunal
rejecting the former claim took the view that the amount of
interest received on cash security furnished by the assessee
for carrying on the sugar agency business could not be said
to be interest from securities or investments as understood
under s. 14(3)(iii) of the Act. Rejecting the latter claim
it held that the amount on which interest had been earned
did not constitute investment and, therefore, was not cov-
ered by s. 14(3)(iii) of the Act. But the High Court accept-
ed the claim in regard to both the amounts.
Disposing of the appeal by the Revenue, the Court,
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal did not err in holding that the
amount received as interest on the cash security from the
cooperative sugar factory was not covered under s.
14(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. [591B]
1.2 The High Court failed to take note of the fact that
the sum of Rs. Two lakhs had been given a security and the
arrangement entered into between the assessee and the coop-
erative sugar factory stipulated payment of interest of 4
1/2 per cent per annum. This sum was repayable to him on the
expiry of the period fixed in the agreement after adjustment
of accounts. It could not, therefore, be said to be an
investment. The amount of interest earned thereon thus
represented only interest on the security deposit and could
not be mixed up with the other sums received by the assessee
in course of carrying on its business. It was not available
to be exempted. [589G; 590F]
2.1 The amount of interest received by the assessee on
advances to its members was income from sugar business and
was, therefore, exempt under s. 14(3)(iii) of the Act.
[595B]
2.2 The money provided by the assessee was by way of
investment with other cooperative societies. If this money
had not been made available the business as stipulated under
the scheme could not have been carried out and perhaps there
would have been no business. This funding to other coopera-
tive societies was necessary to generate profits, and under
the agreement interest has been earned. The High Court was,
588
therefore, right in its conclusion that no tax was payable
on this income from sugar business. [594F-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1228(NT) of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1973 of the
Allahabad High Court in I.T. Reference No. 842 of 1971.
V. Gauri Shankar, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.V.S. Rao, Mrs.
Sushma Suri, P. Parmeshwaran and M.K. Sashidharan for the
Appellant.
Harish N. Salve and Parveen Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal at the instance of the
Revenue is by special leave. Two questions out of six re-
ferred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad,
survive for consideration in this appeal and these are:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, and on a true interpretation of the agreement, the
Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs.9,000 received
as interest from Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. is
not covered under Section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, and on a true and correct interpretation of the
various clauses of the agreement, the sum of Rs.51,295 and
Rs.58,937 received as interest on advances would not be
assessee’s income from coal and sugar business and would
thus be exempt under Section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1922?
At the hearing it has been clarified by counsel for both
parties that in the second question referred to above, the
dispute is confined to the sum of Rs.51,295 only.
The relevant assessment year is 1961-62 corresponding to
the accounting year ending with 30th June, 1960. The asses-
see is a cooperative society registered under the Coopera-
tive Societies Act, 1912. This being an apex body, its
members are various District Cooperative Societies, District
Cooperative Banks and some Govern-
589
ment and other cooperative societies within the State of
Uttar Pradesh. The principal object of the Society is to
regulate the distribution and supply of items like coal,
sugar, cloth etc. through the member cooperative societies.
In the year in question, the assessee inter alia main-
tained that the income earned on the various advances made
by it to the member societies was entitled to exemption
under Section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income
Tax Officer while rejecting the claim of deduction on the
ground of exemption on several heads included interest of
Rs.9,000 received from Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd.
and a sum of Rs.51,295 received by way of interest from
various cooperative societies on temporary loans for financ-
ing sugar business at the rate of 6 per cent on the amount
given as loan as taxable items. The two questions which have
survived for decision in this appeal relate to refusal of
these two deductions on the ground of statutory exemption.
The stand of the assessee had not been accepted by the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appel-
late Tribunal but the High Court has accepted the claim in
regard to both the amounts.
The High Court dealing with the amount of Rs.9,000 held:
"The Tribunal considered the claim for exemp-
tion in respect of amount of Rs.9,000 received
by the assessee from the Bazpur Cooperative
Sugar Factory and held that this represented
the interest received on the cash security of
Rs.2,00,000 which was furnished by the asses-
see for carrying on the sugar agency business,
and as such it could not be said that it was
interest from securities or interest from
investments and as such rejected the claim
made in respect of this amount under Section
14(3)(iii) of the Act."
The High Court considered the exigibility of the sum of
Rs.9,000 to tax analogously with the taxability of the other
sum and did not pointedly take note of the fact that the sum
of Rs.2,00,000 had been given as security and the arrange-
ment entered into between the assessee and the Bazpur Coop-
erative Sugar Factory stipulated payment of interest of 4
1/2 per cent per annum.
We may refer here to clauses (1) and (20) of the agency
agreement:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
590
"1. That the manufacturer hereby
appoints the Agent as one of their two agents
for the whole of the Indian Union for the sale
of sugar produced by the manufacturer during
the crusing seasons 1958-59 and 1959-60 and
the Agent hereby agrees to act as such agent
in the said area on the terms mentioned here-
in. The manufacturer hereby undertakes not to
appoint more than two agents as aforesaid. "
"20. The Agent shall simultaneously
with the execution of this agreement furnish a
cash security of Rs. Two lakhs to the manufac-
turer for a period of two years (irrespective
of previous determination of the agreement for
any cause whatsoever) to ensure against due
compliance by the agent of the terms hereof;
such security shall carry interest at the rate
of 4 1/2 per annum. Such security shall be
repayable with interest to the agent within
one month of the expiry of the period fixed in
the agreement after adjustment of accounts
between the parties. The manufacturer shall
have the option to realise from the said
security money all losses suffered and/or
expenses incurred and not paid by the Agent in
pursuance of the provisions of this agreement.
If the said security shall fall short of Rs.
Two lakhs at any time, the deficiency therein
shall be made good by the Agent within 15 days
of the notice in writing from the manufactur-
er."
The amount of Rs.9,000 thus represented only interest on
the security deposit and could not be mixed-up with the
other sums received by the assessee in course of carrying on
its business. We do not think the High Court was fight in
concluding that this amount of Rs.9,000 was available to be
exempted under any of the clauses of Section 14(3) of the
Act.
Admittedly, the assessee’s claim does not come under
clause (i) of Section 14(3). Unless this sum is covered by
Section 14(3)(iii), there would be no exemption. The sum of
Rs. Two lakhs given as security in terms of the agreement
was not an investment and, therefore, the amount of Rs.9,000
received by way of interest does not come within the purview
of clause (iii). Mr. Salve for the assessee respondent has
fairly conceded that it would be difficult on his part to
press the claim of the assessee for exemption in respect of
this sum. The conclusion of the High Court in regard to this
amount has, therefore,
591
tO be reversed and the stand of the Revenue to the effect
that this amount represents taxable income has to be accept-
ed.
Our answer to the first question, therefore, is that on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true
interpretation of the agreement, the Tribunal did not err
in holding that the sum of Rs.9,000 received as interest
from Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. was not covered
under Section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act.
We shall now deal with the other question. Dealing with
it the High Court stated:
"The facts relating to the case for
exemption in respect of the two amounts of
Rs.51,295 and Rs .58,937 (the second amount is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
no more in dispute) covered by question No. 3
may be stated. We shall begin by referring to
facts relating to advances made in relation to
the sugar business. The assessee was appointed
as one of the wholesale dealers for distribu-
tion of sugar in this State. It had, in pursu-
ance of an agreement entered into between it
and the State Government. to arrange for
lifting, handling,. storing and distributing
to the retailers the stocks of sugar released
by the Government of India. The District
Cooperative Development Federations of Deoria,
Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Pilibhit, Etawah and
Allahabad, entered into agreements with the
assessee to work as agents for the whole sale
distribution of sugar in their Districts. A
sample of the agreement entered into between
the assessee and these various District Coop-
erative Development Federations .... The
assessee was to make necessary investments by
way of payment of price of sugar to be pro-
cured from the factories and also to pay the
administrative charges incurred for the dis-
tribution of sugar. This administrative charge
was, however, recouped by the agents and paid
over to the assessee. The delivery of the
sugar from the various factories was to be
taken by the various District Cooperative
Development Federations which had entered into
agreements with the assessee on behalf of the
assessee as soon as the release orders were
issued by the Government of India. The sugar
so received was to be stored in godowns and
was to remain under the custody of Godownkeep-
ers of the assessee or the bankers of the
assessee. The salaries of the Godown-keepers
and the Chowkidars
592
appointed for safe custody of the stocks of
sugar were to be paid by the agents ..... "
"The sugar so stored was to be re-
leased to the agents as and when required by
them on full payment of its price at the rate
fixed by the State Government or the District
Magistrate concerned. The stocks of sugar
taken over by the agents was to be sold by
them to retailers, and permitholders who were
to be nominated by the District Magistrate or
the officer authorised by him. The whole
salers’. margin on the sugar sold for the
period beginning September 1959 onwards with
which we are concerned was Rs.2.06 Naya Paisa
per bag. The share of the assessee and the
District Cooperative Development Federations
in this amount is set out in clause 18 of the
agreement ..... "
The High Court extracted the terms and came to hold:
"It appear from a letter dated 30th September,
1959, that the various District Cooperative
Development Federations were not in a position
to arrange the entire finances for the busi-
ness and accordingly the assessee agreed to
arrange for finances of the business on cer-
tain terms and conditions. The terms and
conditions on which the finances were to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
arranged may be extracted:
(5) The money invested in the business will
earn interest at 6 per cent per annum.
"It will be seen that money which the assessee
made available to the District Cooperative
Development Federations
was to be utilised for the purchase of the
stocks of sugar which the District Cooperative
sold as agents of the asses-
593
see. In the accounting, year in question, the
assessee realised the following amounts of
interest from the District Cooperative Devel-
opment Federations mentioned below:
Name Amount
i) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Deoria.
4,694.16
ii) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Garhwal.
15,797.60
iii) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Tehri Garhwal
5,557.50
iv) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Etawah.
2,984.24
v) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Pilibhit.
2,616.21
vi) District Cooperative Development
Federation Ltd., Allahabad.
19,645.53
Total : 51,295.24
Dispute covered by the second question to be answered is
over this amount. The Income Tax Officer as also the two
appellate authorities relying upon the decisions of the
Bombay High Court in Sir Chinu Bhai Madav Lal v. Commission-
er of income Tax, 37 I.T.R. 210 and Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay City v. Bombay State Cooperative Bank Ltd., 59
I.T.R. 31 held that the amount on which interest had been
earned under the agreement did not constitute investment
and, therefore, was not covered by Section 14(3)(iii) of the
Act.
Section 14(3) provides that tax shall not be payable by
a cooperative society in certain situations. Clause (i)
under its six sub-clauses refers to specific classes of
cooperative societies in whose case there is total exemp-
tion. Clause (ii) exempts income in respect of profits and
gains of business of cooperative societies not covered by
clause (i) upto Rs. 15,000. Clause (iii) exempts interest.
and dividends and income derived from investments with any
other cooperative society. Clause
594
(iv) exempts income derived from letting of godowns or
warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the
marketing of commodities while Clause (v) exempts interest
on securities chargeable under Section 8 or any income from
property chargeable under Section 9, where the total income
of the cooperative society of specific type mentioned there-
in does not exceed Rs.20,000.
There can be no dispute on the conclusion reached by the
High Court that the money provided by the assessee was by
way of investment. In fact, if this money had not been made
available the business as stipulated under the scheme could
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
not have been carried out and perhaps there would have been
no business. "Investment" has not been defined in the Act.
P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon, (Reprint Edition 1987)
states:
"The term invest is used in a sense
broad enough to cover the loaning of the money
but is not restricted to that mode of invest-
ment or loans made on commercial paper. The
word invest has been judicially defined as
follows:
’To place property in business; to
place so that it will be safe and yield a
profit. It is also commonly understood as
giving money for some other property (as)
investing funds on lands and houses. Invest-
ment means in common parlance, putting out
money on interest, either by the way of loan,
or by the purchase of income producing proper-
ty ...’
In the facts of the present case the money provided by
the assessee was necessary to run the business and generate
profits; under the agreement interest has been earned. In
the peculiar situation appearing in the case as found by the
High Court the provision of money by the assessee, the
purpose for which the money was provided, the stipulation
for earning of interest, were relevant considerations to be
taken into account and it becomes difficult to take a view
different from that of the High Court that the funding was
investment and under the agreement interest has been earned.
Admittedly the finding was the cooperative societies. In our
opinion, therefore, the amount of Rs.51,295 squarely came
within Section 14(3)(iii) of the Act. The High Court, there-
fore, was right in its conclusion that no tax was payable on
the said amount. We would like to point out that under
Section 14(3) provision has been made to extend certain
advantages to the cooperative societies in order that the
legislative purpose of providing incentive to the coopera-
tive movement may be fulfilled. The High Court
595
was right in holding that the provisions contained in Sec-
tion 14(3) should be liberally construed.
Our answer to the second question, therefore, is on the
facts and in the circumstances .of the case and on a true
and correct interpretation of the various clauses of the
agreement, the sum of Rs.51,295 received as interest on
advances in the assessee’s income from sugar business was
exempt under Section 14(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1922.
There shall be no order for costs in this appeal as
success is divided.
P.S.S. Appeal disposed
of.
596