COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY vs. CHUNILAL V. MEHTA AND SONS (P) LTD.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the assessee's right to compensation arose on April 23, 1951, when the resolution terminating the managing agency was passed. Section 10(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, distinguishes between 'due to' for assessees following the mercantile system and 'received by' for those on the cash system. Since the assessee maintained accounts on the mercantile system, the compensation accrued in April 1951, making the succeeding assessment year the relevant period for taxation. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the right arose when the quantum was determined, stating that claiming an exorbitant sum does not convert a vested right into a contingent one. The plain language of Section 10(5A) does not support a legal fiction deeming the compensation due in December 1955. The fact that the assessee included the receipt in its profit and loss account in 1955 was immaterial; the method of accounting, not the actual entries, is relevant. The Court agreed with the High Court's answers, dismissing the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons (P) Ltd., held the managing agency of a public limited company. The managing agency agreement stipulated a minimum term of 21 years. On April 23, 1951, the managed company's directors resolved to terminate the assessee's services, which was affirmed by shareholders on May 23, 1951. A dispute arose over compensation. The assessee filed a suit, and the Bombay High Court decreed Rs. 2,34,000 as liquidated damages for the unexpired period of the agency (3 years, 2 months, 7 days) at Rs. 6,000 per month. The assessee received this amount in December 1955. The assessee maintained accounts on the mercantile basis and contended that the compensation became due in 1951 and thus was not taxable for assessment year 1956-57 under Section 10(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Act, 1955. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this, but the Tribunal agreed with the assessee. The High Court held the amount not taxable in 1956-57 but interest thereon was.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the compensation received by the assessee for the termination of its managing agency, which accrued on April 23, 1951, is taxable in the assessment year 1956-57, given that Section 10(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was introduced by the Finance Act, 1955, and the assessee maintains accounts on a mercantile basis? Assessee's contentions: The compensation became due in 1951 when the managing agency was terminated. As the assessee maintains accounts on a mercantile basis, the income accrued in 1951 and is therefore not taxable in the assessment year 1956-57. The introduction of Section 10(5A) by the Finance Act, 1955, does not make it retrospective, and if the amount accrued before its enactment, it cannot be taxed under this section. Revenue's contentions: The right to receive the compensation arose only when the quantum was determined by the High Court. Section 10(5A) creates a new liability and, as the receipt occurred in December 1955, after the section's incorporation, it should be deemed to have become due in December 1955, irrespective of the assessee's accounting method.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(5A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
117 A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY v. CHUNILAL V. MEHTA AND SONS (P) LTD. B August 11, 1971 [K. s. HEGDE and A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 10 (5-A)-Compensation received on ter- mination of n1anaging agency taxable under section-Section enacted by Finance Act, 1955--Managing Agency terminated on April 23, 1951- Suit for compensation under agreement filed by managing agcnts- C Compensation amount as determined by High Court received b,r managing agents in December 1955-Managing agents maintaining acco1111ts on mercantile basis-Compensation amount when falls due? -Wltether taxable in assessment year 1956-57. ' D E F G H The assessee held the managing agency of a public lirr,ited company Under the agreement the assessee was to continue as managing agents for a minimum period of 21 years.
On April 23, 1951 the Directors of the managed company passed a resolution te1minating the sci vices of the assessee as managing agents. This resolution was affi1med by the shareholders at their extraordinary general meeting held on May 23, 1951. There was dispute about the compensation payable to the assessee.
Jn a suit filed by the latter the tr
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
