RAJ KUMAR SINGH HUKAM CHANDJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MADHYA. PRADESH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 326/1967Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 74811 August 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER RAJ KUMAR SINGH HUKAM CHANDJI13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessment year in question is 1954-55. The dispute concerns the remuneration received by Rajkumar Singh as Managing Director of Sarupchand Hukamchand Private Ltd. The original HUF business disrupted in 1950, and a company was incorporated. The assessee's branch, represented by its Karta, received shares in the company, with consideration from HUF funds. These shares and their dividends were treated as HUF property. Rajkumar Singh was appointed Managing Director and received remuneration. For previous years, this remuneration was assessed as his individual income. The High Court ruled in favour of the Revenue, holding the remuneration assessable in the hands of the HUF. This appeal challenges that decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the managing director's remuneration received by Rajkumar Singh was assessable as his individual income and not as the income of his Hindu Undivided Family. The Court established a broad principle: if remuneration is essentially a compensation for services rendered by an individual coparcener, it is individual income. If, however, it is in substance a return for the investment of family funds, it is HUF income. Applying this to the facts, the Court found that Rajkumar was elected Managing Director by the board of directors for his personal services, not merely because his family held shares. The Tribunal had found that he was not appointed as a result of any outlay or detriment to family property, and that the directorship was an employment of personal responsibility and ability. The Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion and allowed the appeal, reversing the High Court's answer to the reference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the managing director's remuneration received by Sri Rajkumar Singh was assessable in his individual hands or in the hands of the assessee Hindu Undivided Family? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's contentions. However, the appeal itself implies the assessee argued that the remuneration should be taxed as individual income. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the High Court's decision in favour of the Revenue suggests they argued for the remuneration to be assessed as HUF income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

748 RAJ KUMAR SINGH HUKAM CHANDJI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MADHYA. PRADESH August 11, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Indian Income-tax Act (ll of 1922)_.;_Remuneration as Managing Director-Whether assessable as income of individual or of Hindu un· divided family. A Hindu undivided family carrying on management of a company dis- rupted into 3 branches, one being that of the assessee, and the shares of tne company were more in the names of his family members. The consideration for all these subsequent acquisitions was from the Hindu undivided family funds.

All the shares-the previous and subsequent acquisition-were treated in the books and the balance shee of the assessee family as its property and its dividends were also credited to the account of the family.

As Managing Director of the company the assessee re- ceived certain remuneration. On the question whether the managing director's remuneration received by the assessee was assessable in his individual hands or in the hands of the assessee's Hir·"· un.divided family, this Court :- HELD :-The remuneration was assessable as the assessee's individual . income and not as the income

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 66A(2)

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →