BHARAT BEEDI WORKS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND ANR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1452/1987Supreme Court[1993] 3 S.C.R. 60607 May 1993Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N. VENKATACHALA UHARA T BEEDI WORKS10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

A partnership firm, engaged in manufacturing and selling beedies under the brand name 'Mangalore Prakash Beedies', sold its rights and assets to a newly incorporated private limited company, Prakash Beedies Ltd. (the assessee-appellant), on July 15, 1972. The agreement stipulated that the company would pay the firm a royalty of 10 paise for every 1000 beedies sold, for the use of the trade name. The three partners of the firm were also directors of the assessee-company. For assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee claimed deductions for these royalty payments. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) allowed these deductions. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), in suo motu proceedings under Section 263, disallowed the deductions, holding that the payments fell within Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the ITO's order. On reference, the High Court ruled in favour of the revenue, stating that as the directors were also partners, the payments were effectively made to the directors, thus attracting Section 40(c).

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the royalty payments made by the assessee-company to the partnership firm did not fall within the purview of Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Even assuming that payments to the firm were payments to partners, the Court reasoned that these payments were made in consideration of a valuable right (the brand name) that the firm/partners/directors had parted with in favour of the assessee-company. As long as the agreement under which these payments were made was not a mere device or screen, such payments could not be treated as payments made to the directors in their capacity as directors (qua directors). The Court noted that while such payments might be subject to scrutiny under Section 40A(2), they did not fall within the specific provisions of Section 40(c). The Court approved the view taken in T.T. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. I.T.O., Bangalore, and followed by other High Courts, which distinguished payments for services or facilities with a market value from the remuneration, benefit, or amenity contemplated by Section 40(c). The Court also addressed the revenue's argument regarding payments to relatives of directors, stating that such payments would be examined under the test of reasonableness and business needs, a situation not arising in this case. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the question referred was answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether royalty payments made by the assessee-company to a partnership firm, where the partners of the firm are also directors of the company, fall within the ambit of Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and are thus disallowable beyond a prescribed ceiling. Assessee's contentions: - Payment to a firm is not ipso facto a payment to its partners, directly or indirectly. - The payments were made in consideration for a valuable right (the brand name) parted by the firm/partners/directors to the company, not in their capacity as directors (qua directors). - Section 40(c) was not intended to cover such payments. - Reliance was placed on the Finance Minister's budget speech and the principle of interpretation noscitur a sociis for the words 'remuneration, benefit or amenity'. - The genuineness of the agreement, the factum of payments as royalty, and the business value of the brand name were not disputed. Revenue's contentions: - The High Court held that since the three directors of the assessee-company were also partners in the firm, the payments to the firm were in reality made to the directors, attracting Section 40(c). - The revenue argued that the assessee's contention that only payments made to directors qua directors fall within clause (c) is inapt when payments are made to relatives of directors or persons holding substantial interest, as the ceiling in clause (c) cannot be applied to such persons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(c),Section 40A(2),Section 263,Section 256

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A UHARA T BEEDI WORKS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND ANR. n c D ETC.ETC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MAY 7, 1993 [B.P . .JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA,JJ.J Income-Tax Act 1961-S.40 (c)-Parmers in firm also directors in a company-\Vhether royalty payme111s by company to jinn falls within s. 40 (c)-Held, pay111e111s are consideration for a valuable right parted by firm! par111ersldirectors of the assessee-Company in favour of assessee-\l'here agreemem wherewuler pay111e111s made not mere device or screen, it cannu1 be trea1ed as payments made 10 directors qua direc/ors-S. -10 (A) (2). A partnership firm consisting of three partners was engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing and sale of becdics under the brand name "Mangalorc Prakash Bccdics". On May 20, 1972 a private limited compan~· called' prakash Bccdics Ltd. '-the asscssce-appellant was incorporated. One of its objects was to take over the business of' the aforesaid firms which it did under an agreement dated 15.July1972 whereby the firms sold its rights and assets to the company. For the use of' the trade name,a royalty at l Op. for every E 1000 becdies was to be paid by the company to the firm.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)

All 532 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →