COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA vs. T.I. & M. SALES LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1449/1974Supreme Court[1987] 2 S.C.R. 88310 April 1987Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA OF11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, T.I. & M. Sales Ltd., was assessed as a representative assessee for ten non-resident companies, categorized into Group-A (six companies), Group-B (three companies), and Group-C (one company). The Income-tax Officer held that an agreement dated December 16, 1948, established a business connection between the assessee and the Group-C company, and that Group-A companies were connected through an export company. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeals, finding no proof for its assertions. The Tribunal upheld the assessments but referred questions to the High Court. The High Court found no business connection between the Indian assessee and the non-resident companies. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. It held that the High Court was correct in finding that the Indian assessee had no business connections with the non-resident companies within the meaning of Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that whether a relationship constitutes a "business connection" under Section 163(1)(b) depends on the specific facts of a case. The Court acknowledged criticism regarding the High Court's use of the assessee's affidavit but found the Revenue had waived its right to dispute the affidavit's facts due to its conduct, including not challenging its admissibility or contents, and the passage of time. Given that the affidavit's facts were accepted, the Court found the ratio of CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. applicable, leading to the conclusion that no business connection was established. Therefore, unless the matter fell under Section 163(1)(a), there would be no liability for assessment. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the six non-resident companies in Group A had a business connection with the Indian Company and that the Indian Company was correctly treated as an agent under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, if the answer to question 1 is affirmative, the Tribunal was justified in holding that profits could be deemed to accrue or arise in India to the six non-residents? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the non-resident companies in Group B had a business connection with the Indian Company and that the Indian Company was correctly treated as an agent under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether, if the answer to question 3 is affirmative, the Tribunal was justified in holding that profits could be deemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident companies in Group B? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that no liability accrued under the Act, attempting to establish the actual course of dealing. An affidavit of the Secretary was filed before the Tribunal stating no obstruction to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's inquiry and that documents were provided. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the agreement of 1948 clearly indicated the non-resident employed the Indian Company for selling goods on commission, establishing a business connection. The Revenue also argued that Group-A companies were connected through the export company. The Revenue criticized the High Court's use of the affidavit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 163(1)(b),Section 9,Section 163,Section 42,Section 9(1),Section 163(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA A v. t T.l. & M. SALES LTD. APRIL 10, 1987 [R.S PATHAK C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.] B l Income Tax Act, 1961/Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 163(1)(b)I Section 43-'Business Connection'-What amounts to-Dependent upon a set of facts in a particular case.

The assessee-respondent was assessed to income tax as a repre- c sentative assessee of ten non-resident companies. The companies were grouped under three heads-six in Group-A, three in Group-B and ~ one in Group-C. In regard to the companies under Group-A, the assessee had no direct agreement but had dealings by virtue of its agree- ment with the exporting company; as regards the three companies under Group-B, the assessee had no business connection with them; D and so far as the only company under Group-C was concerned, the assessee's stand was that it had an agreement dated December 16, 1948 with the export company, but no liability accrued under the law in respect of the transactions. ' -41'

The Income-tax Officer referred specifically to the agreement of E 1948 and refuted the stand of the company. He held that the agreement was a clear authority that the non-resident

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 9

All 523 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →