Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
M. K. BROTHERS (P) LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
C.I.T. KANPUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1972
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
HEGDE, K.S.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION:
1973 AIR 524 1973 SCR (1)1077
1973 SCC (3) 30
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1975 SC1945 (19)
ACT:
Income-tax Act (11 of 1922)-Amount due to company from its
sole selling agent-Liability undertaken by appellant to pay
amount in consideration of its appointment as sole selling
agent-If Capital or revenue expenditure.
HEADNOTE:
In 1955, a large amount was due to a corporation from a firm
which was then its sole selling agent., As a result of an
agreement between the. appellant, the corporation, and the
firm, the appellant undertook to discharge the liability of
the firm in consideration of its being appointed the sole
selling agent in place of the firm. In 1956, an indenture
was executed by the corporation and the appellant relating
to the appointment of the appellant as sole selling agent,
and in this indenture, it was agreed that the corporation
should be authorised to retain an amount equal to 1/7 ,of
the trade discount due to the. sole selling agents with a
minimum of Rs. 50,000 a year, for discharging the liability,
so that, the amount payable to the sole selling agents would
be the amount payable as trade discount minus the aforesaid
amount retained by the corporation. Clause 13 of the
indenture provided that, the selling agents shall have no
claim whatsoever to any such amounts retained out of the
normal trade discount and adjusted in the account of the
firm as ’if the amount so retained was not payable to "hem.
For the assessment year 1956-57, out of the commission
payable to the appellant as selling agents the corporation
retained a sum under the contract for adjustment against the
outstanding dues of the firm. The appellant, in its
statement of account, credited the full an-.,-)Lint of
commission to its profit and loss account, and the sum
retained by the corporation was shown as a deduction
therefrom. The Department, the Appellate Tribunal and the
High Court on reference, disallowed the deduction on the
ground that it was a capital expenditure and not a revenue
expenditure and held that the amount was liable to tax.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : (1) The answer to the question whether the money paid
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
was a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure does not
depend upon whether the amount paid is large or small or
whether it was paid in a lumpsum or by instalments. It
depends upon the purpose for which the payment had been made
and the expenditure incurred. If the object of making the
payment is to acquire a capital asset the payment would
partake of the character of a capital payment even though it
is not made in a lumpsum but by instalments over a period of
time. If any such asset or advantage for the enduring
benefit of the business ’is thus acquired or brought into
existence it would be immaterial whether the source of the
payment was capital or the income of the concern or whether
the payment was made once for all or was made periodically.
On the contrary, payment made in the course of and for the
purpose of carrying on business or trading activity would be
revenue expenditure even though the payment is of a large
amount and was not to be made periodically. The aim and.
object
20-L172SupCI/73
1078
of the expenditure would determine the character of the
expenditure whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue
expenditure. The source or the manner of the payment would
then be of no consequence. [1082 C-H]
Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
West Bengal [1955] 27 I.T.R. (34 on p. 45) and P. B. Divecha
(Deceased) and After Him His Legal Representatives and
Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City 1 [1963]
48 I.T.R. 222, followed.,
(2) In the present case, the appellant got the sole selling
agency in consideration of its agreeing to pay the amount
which was then due from the firm to the corporation. If the
appellant paid the amount in a lump sum in consideration of
its being appointed the sole selling agent the payment would
have constituted capital expenditure as it was an amount
paid for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or
advantage for the enduring benefit of the business. The
fact that the amount was paid not in a lump sum but was paid
in instalments through deductions out of the commission due
to the appellant would not make any difference. [1082A-C]
(3) Even if under cl. 13 of the indenture the appellant
could not make any claim to the amount which had been
retained by the corporation it would make no material
difference so far as the true nature of that amount was
concerned. The amount was deducted by the corporation ’in
pursuance of the agreement entered into by the appellant
with the corporation and the firm, according to which, the
appellant had to pay that amount in the form of deductions
out of its commission in consideration of being appointed
the sole selling agent. It was not a case of the appli-
cation of income to discharge a liability incurred in the
course of running the business but a liability undertaken
for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling agency right
which was an asset of a capital nature. [1083 D-F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 342 of 1969.
Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution
of India from the judgment and order dated February 16, 1966
of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Case No. 434 of 1962.
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
T. A. Ramachandran, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for
the respondent.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J. This appeal on certificate granted by the Allah&,
bad High Court is directed against the judgment of that
court
1079
whereby it answered the following two questions referred to
it under section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellant
and in favour of revenue :
"(1) Whether on the facts and on a true and
proper interpretation of the agreement dated
31-7-1956, between the British India
Corporation and the appellant company, the
letters of Sri Kailash Nath Agarwal, the
letters of Managing Directors, the sum of Rs.
43,333/ retained by the British India
Corporation and adjusted by it to the credit
of Sharma & Co. was the assessable income of
the appellant company ?
(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the sum of Rs. 43,333/-
represented an expenditure under section 10 ?"
The matter relates to the assessment year 1956-57. The
appellant is a private limited company and Kailash Nath
Agarwal is one of its directors. As per agreement dated
July 31, 1956 the appellant was appointed with effect from
April 1, 1955 the sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton
Mills for the sale of yarn and cloth manufactured by the
said mills. The Kanpur Cotton Mills is owned by the British
India Corporation hereinafter referred to as BIC. Prior to
the appellant’s appointment Sharma & Co., a partnership
firm, was functioning as the sole selling agent of the
Kanpur Cotton Mills. The amount due by Sharma & Co. to the
Kanpur Cotton Mills as on March 21, 1955 was Rs.
8,39,350/15/6 inclusive of interest. On March 23, 1955 a
letter was addressed on behalf of Sharma & Co. to the
Managing Director of BIC stating that an agreement had been
entered into with Kailash Nath Agarwal whereby Sharma & Co.
had agreed to give up the sole selling agency of the Kanpur
Cotton Mills. The Managing Director of BIC was requested to
appoint Kailash Nath Agarwal or any firm or company forced
by him for this purpose as the sole selling agent in place
of Sharma & Co. Reference was also made in that letter to an
agreement between Sharma & Co. and Kailash Nath Agarwal in
the following words
"As you will notice from the agreement’ with
Sri Kailash Nath Agarwal we are entitled to
receive one seventh of the commission due to
the new selling agency or to a sum of Rs.
50,000/- per annum whichever is greater, till
your dues with interest are fully liquidated.
We do hereby authorise you to retain this
amount thus becoming due to us out of the
commission payable to the agency and adjust
the same to our firm’s account with the
Corporation."
1080
On the same day, i.e. March 23, 1955 Kailash Nath Agarwal
addressed a letter to the Managing Director of BIC informing
him ,of the agreement with Sharma & Co. and requesting for
the grant of sole selling agency to the appellant. The
letter concluded as follows :
"I hereby authorise you in case you are
pleased to grant your sole selling agency to
my said firm to retain one-seventh of our
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
commission for adjustment in the account of
M/s. Sharma & Co. with minimum of Rs.
50,000/- per annum till your dues against them
are cleared with interest."
The Mananging Director of BIC later on that day, i.e. March
23, 1955 addressed a letter to Sharma & Co. accepting its
resignation from the sole selling agency of the Kanpur
Cotton Mills and about the appointment of Kailash Nath
Agarwal or his nominee as the sole selling agent in
succession to Sharma & Co. In regard to the liquidation of
dues from Sharma & Co. the Managing Director of BIC wrote:
"As agreed between Shri Kailash Nath Agarwal
and yourselves we shall deduct one seventh of
the commission or Rs. 50,0001- whichever is
greater out of the commission earned by the
new sole selling agents and credit the same to
your account with us till our dues against you
standing today at Rs. 8,39,350/15/6 are
completely liquidated with interest thereon at
6%."
On July 31, 1956 on indenture was executed by BIC and the
appellant relating to the apointment of the appellant as the
sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills for the sale
of yarn, cloth and cotton manufactures with effect from
April 1, 1955. In this indenture the appellant ratified the
agreement entered into by Kailash Nath Agarwal with Sharma &
Co. on March 23, 1955 and authorised BIC "to give effect to
the said agreement generally and in particular to retain an
amount equal to one-seventh of the trade discount of 1-3/4%
due to the sole selling agents with a minimum of Rs. 50,0001
per annum so that the amount payable to the sole selling
agents shall be the amount payable at the rate of II% minus
the aforesaid amount retained by the corporation as payable
to M/s Sharma & Co." Clauses 12 and 13 of the indenture were
as under:
"Clause 12
That in the event of the dissolution of M/s
Sharma & Co. before the complete repayment of
their liability the sole selling agents agree
that the corporation may continue to retain an
amount equal to one-seventh of
1081
the trade discount of 1 3/4% or 50,000/-
whichever is greater and adjust it towards
such dues of M/s Sharma & Co. as may them be
standing.
Clause 13
That the authority given above to the
corporation to retain and adjust a part of the
-trade discount towards the outstanding
against M/s Sharma & Co. will not be revocable
and will be binding on the sole selling
agents, their successor, or assigns only so
long as they act as the corporation’s sole
selling agents and will be deemed to be a
condition on which the sole selling agency has
been granted to the agents. The agents will
have no claim whatsoever to any such amounts
retained out of their normal trade discount
and adjusted in the account of M/s Sharma &
Co. as if the amount so retained was not
payable to them."
During the year under reference, the commission as per terms
of the indenture dated July 31, 1956 payable to the
appellant amounted to Rs. 2,06,283. Out of this amount, Rs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
43,333 were retained by BIC under the contract for
adjustment against the outstanding dues of Sharma & Co. in
accordance with the terms of the indenture. In its
statement of account the appellant credited the full amount
of commission of Rs. 2,06,283 to its profit and loss
account. The sum of Rs. 43,333 was, however, shown as a
deduction therefrom. During, the, assessment proceedings,
the Income Tax Officer disallowed the above deduction. The
order of the Income Tax Officer in this respect was upheld
by the Appellant Assistant Commissioner in appeal as well as
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in second appeal. On
application filed by the appellant, the, Tribunal referred
the questions reproduced earlier to the High Court. The
High Court, as stated.. above, answered the two questions
against the appellants.
In appeal Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant has
argued that the amount of Rs. 43,333 was a permissible
deduction and the High Court was in error in deciding this
matter against the appellant-. There is, in our opinion, no
force in this contention and we agree with Mr. Ram Chandran,
learned counsel for the respondent, that the judgment of the High
Court should be, ,upheld. It would appear from the
resume of facts given above that in March 1955 an amount of
Rs. 8,39,350/15/6 was due to BIC from the firm Sharma & Co.
who was the previous sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton
Mills. As a result of agreement between the appellant, BIC
and Sharma & Co. the appellant undertook to discharge the
liability of Sharma & Co. in lieu of being appointed the
sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills, in place of
Sharma & Co. It can, therefore, be said that
1082
the appellant got the sole selling agency of the Kanpur
Cotton Mills in consideration of its agreeing to pay Rs.
8,39,350-15-6 which was the amount due from Sharma & Co. to
BIC. It is not disputed by Mr. Maheshwari that if the
amount of Rs. 8,39,350/ 1516 had been paid by the appellant
in lump sum in consideration of its being appointed the sole
selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills, the payment would
have constituted capital expenditure as it was an amount
paid for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or
advantage for the enduring benefit of the business. The
fact that the amount was paid not in lump sum but was paid
in instalments through deductions out of the commission due
to the appellant would not, in our opinion, make any
difference. The answer to the question as to whether the
money paid is a revenue-expenditure or capital expenditure
depends not so much upon the fact as to whether the amount
paid is large or small or whether it has been’ paid in lump
sum or by instalments, as it does upon the purpose for which
the payment has been made and expenditure incurred. It is
the real nature and quality of the payment and not *the
quantum or the manner of the payment which would prove
decisive. If the object of making the payment is to acquire
a capital asset, the payment would partake of the character
of a capital payment even though it is made not in lump sum
but by instalments over a period of time. On the contrary,
payment made in the course of and for the purpose of
carrying on business or trading activity would be revenue
expenditure even though the payment is of a large amount and
has not to be made periodically. As observed by this Court,
in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income Tax, West Bengal(1), if the expenditure is made
for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or
advantage for the enduring benefit of the business it is
properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
capital expenditure. If on the other hand it is made not
for the purpose of bringing into existence any such asset of
advantage but for running the business or working it with a
view to produce the profits it is a revenue expenditure. If
any such .asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of
the business is thus acquired or brought into existence, it
would be immaterial whether the source of the payment was
the capital or the income of the concern or whether the
payment was made once and for all or was made periodically.
The aim and object of the expenditure would determine the
character of the expenditure whether it is a capital
expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The source or the
manner of the payment would then be of no consequence. We
may also in this connection refer to the following
observations of this Court .in the case of P. H. Divecha
(Deceased) and After Him His Legal Representatives and
Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City 1(2).
(1) [1955] 27 I.T.R. 34 (on p. 45).
(2) [1963] 48 I.T.R. 222.
1083
"It may also be stated as a general rule that
the fact that the amount involved was large or
that it was periodic in character have no
decisive bearing upon the matter. A payment
may even be described as "pay" "remuneration",
etc., but that does not determine its quality,
though the name by which it has been called
may be relevant in determining its true
nature, because this gives an indication of
how the person who paid the money and the
person who received it viewed it in the first
instance. The periodicity of the payment does
not make the payment a recurring income
because periodicity may be the result of
convenience and not necessarily the result of
the establishment of a source expected to be produ
ctive over a certain period. These
general principles have been settled firmly by
this court in a large number of cases."
Although the above observations were made in, the context of
periodic, receipts, they have a direct bearing even on cases
relating to periodic payments.
Mr. Maheshwari has referred to clause 13 of the indenture
reproduced above and has contended that the appellant could
make no claim to the amount of Rs. 43,3.33 which had been
retained by BIC, This fact.. in our opinion would make no
material difference so far as the true nature of that amount
was concerned, The amount was deducted by BIC in pursuance
of the agreement entered into by the appellant with BIC
and Sharma & Co., according to which the appellant had to
pay that amount in the form of deduction out of its
commission in consideration of being appointed the sole
selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. The present is a
case relating to the application of income to discharge a
liability incurred not in the course of running the business
but a liability undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the
sole selling agency right which was indisputably an asset of
capital nature.
The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
1084