COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA vs. ALAGAPPA TEXTILE (COCHIN) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2001/1978Supreme Court[1980] 1 S.C.R. 72319 September 1979Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited, entered into an agreement with Kamala Mills Ltd. for financing and managing its business for five years from November 10, 1955. Kamala Mills Ltd. was to receive remuneration at 1.5% on purchases and 0.5% on sales. Clause 13 stipulated that the assessee's Board of Directors would not interfere with Kamala Mills Ltd.'s discretion, except for general supervision and advice. Clause 14 clarified that Kamala Mills Ltd. was not a manager in charge of the whole affairs. Clause 16 described the agreement as an 'agency coupled with interest'. Kamala Mills Ltd. drew remuneration of Rs. 1,03,547/- for 1957 and Rs. 18,249/- for 1958, corresponding to assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee claimed these amounts as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that payments after October 1, 1956, were illegal under Section 384 of the Companies Act, 1956, as a body corporate could not continue as a manager beyond six months from the Act's commencement. The Tribunal confirmed this view. The High Court, however, ruled in favour of the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Kamala Mills Ltd. was not a 'manager' within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court reasoned that Section 2(24) requires a manager to be subject to the superintendence, control, and direction of the Board of Directors, which was explicitly excluded by Clause 13 of the agreement. Instead, Clause 13 stated that the Board would only provide general supervision and advice and would not interfere with Kamala Mills Ltd.'s discretion. The Court found that the dominant object of the agreement was for Kamala Mills Ltd. to act as a financier, and the managerial functions were incidental to this role. Therefore, the prohibition under Section 384 of the Companies Act, 1956, was not attracted, and the remuneration paid was a legitimate business expenditure deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Consequently, the issue regarding the suit for recovery became irrelevant. The Court dismissed the revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Kamala Mills Ltd. was a 'manager' within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 1956, so as to attract the prohibition under Section 384 of the said Act, making the remuneration paid to it illegal and non-deductible as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? The assessee argued that Kamala Mills Ltd. was not a manager as it was not subject to the superintendence, control, and direction of the Board of Directors, and Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 1956, defines a manager as an individual. The revenue contended that Kamala Mills Ltd., by virtue of the agreement, was in management of the company's affairs and thus fell within the ambit of Section 384, making subsequent payments illegal. 2. Whether the pendency of a suit filed by the assessee to recover the remuneration paid to Kamala Mills Ltd. could be a ground for disallowing the deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in light of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? The High Court held that the pendency of a suit for recovery could not be a valid ground for disallowing a permissible deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 2(24),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

723 - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA A v. - - ALAGAPPA TEXTILE (COCHIN) LTD.

September 19, 1979 [V .. D. TULZAPURKAR' AND R_ S. PATHAK, JJ.] , B ·t Bu.tiness E·xpenditurY!"-section t0(2)(xv) oi the Income-tax Act, 1922- 1· /:ether tlze 1 remuneration tOH'arcls the '111a11ager' Kanzala Mills Ltd . . is falling -(~·ithin the 1neaning _of Section 384 read witll s. 2(24) of the Co1npaiiies Act 1a[[c7"A:able as "business expenditure"-Construction of the terms of Agreement- lVliether the managing company falls l'.:ithin the meaning of. Section 2(24) of · .the Companies Act, 1956. · C Respondent, assessee ("!!.Ifs. Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited company i.vas carrying on business of manufacture and sale of yarn. It entered into an Agreement dated November 10, 1955 with Kamala l\lills Ltd., Coimbatore for financing and managing the assessee l\fills at A1agappa Na-gar for a reriod of five years. Clause 8 of the Agreement provided that Kama1a ~fills Ltd. shall be paid for the ser''ices, rendered by it by \-Vay of purchases, sales ·and manage- ment, remuneration at the rite of I% on all purchases made by it for the nssessce Mil1s and at half a percent on all sales

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(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →