C. I. T. CENTRAL BOMBAY vs. JALAN TRADING CO. (P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1733/1973Supreme Court1985 INSC 17109 August 1985Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, RANGANATH MISRA C. I. T. CENTRAL15 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd., was incorporated on October 16, 1952. A firm, also named Jalan Trading Co., had obtained a sole selling agency for products of Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for two years with a renewal option. Under a deed of assignment dated December 30, 1952, the firm assigned the benefits of this agreement to the assessee company. The assessee was to carry on the business as sole selling agents and, in consideration, was to pay the firm 75% of its profits and commission received from the manufacturer. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,93,837 for the assessment year 1954-55, representing this payment. The Income Tax Officer and appellate authorities rejected the claim. The Appellate Tribunal held the expenditure to be capital in nature. The High Court, while agreeing that an asset of enduring nature was acquired, held the payment to be business expenditure deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the expenditure was not admissible as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that expenditure incurred for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset for the enduring benefit of the business is capital expenditure. The aim and object of the expenditure determine its nature, not the source or manner of payment. The Court found that the High Court erred in applying the reasoning from the Travancore Sugars & Cereals Ltd. case, which involved a substantial outright cash payment in addition to an indefinite annual payment, to the present facts. In this case, the High Court had categorically found that a capital asset was acquired for carrying on the business on a long-term basis. Therefore, the expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible. The Court also found no merit in the assessee's submission that the amount was not taxable income, reiterating that if the amount was spent for obtaining a capital asset, it would not be deductible. The judgment of the High Court was vacated, and the Tribunal's decision was to be given effect to.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sum of Rs. 7,93,837 paid by the assessee to the firm, representing 75% of its profits and commission, is deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as business expenditure, given that it was for acquiring an asset of enduring benefit. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that once 75% of its profits were paid to the firm, that amount was no longer its income. Therefore, under Section 10(1), which envisages tax on real income, this amount was not taxable income in its hands. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that if the amount was spent for obtaining a capital asset, the assessee would not be entitled to claim it as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 10(2)(xv),Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

517 C. I. T. CENTRAL J!(llllAY v. JALAll TRADING CO. (P) LTD. AUGUST 9, 1985 (V .D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI Mll!OIARJI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ • l Indian Income Tax Act 1922 - Section lO(l)(xv) - Firm obtaining sole selling agency - Benefit of agreement assigned to assessee, a newly incorporated company - 75% of annual profits to be paid to firm - Sum paid - Whether deductible under section .10(1) (xv). A firm (JTC) . obtained the sole selling agency for the products of. a manufacturer for two years with a right of renewal. A few months later, under a deed of assignment, the firm assigned the benefits ot the agreement to the assessee cc)mpany'under Which the assessee carried on the business as sole selling agents for the products of the· manufacturer. Under the deed of assignment the assessee company should take over not the whole of the business of the firm but only the benefit of the contract with the manufacturers in consideration whereof the assessee was· to pay to the firm as and. by way of royalty, an amount equal to 75% of their profits and cODDission, rl!llllneration and other moneys received from the manufacturers. The assessee had the option to ren

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 10(1)

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →