COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. MYSORE SPINNING & MFG. CO. LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1760/1967Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 46830 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER COMMISSIONER OF6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mysore Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., carried on business of manufacturing and selling yarn and cloth. It maintained two private provident funds for its employees, which were not recognized under Chapter IXA of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Upon the enforcement of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, the company, under directions from the Provident Fund Commissioner, transferred accumulations from these private funds to the statutory Employees Provident Fund. This included the company's own contributions amounting to Rs. 3,01,772-1-7 up to October 31, 1952. The assessee claimed this amount as a deduction for the assessment year 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Appellate Tribunal disallowed the claim. The High Court, however, decided in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 58K(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was not applicable to the transfer in question. For Section 58K(1) to apply, three conditions must be met: (1) the employer maintained a provident fund, (2) there was a transfer of such fund to trustees, and (3) such transfer was in trust for the employees participating in the fund. While the first condition was met, the Court found that the third condition was not satisfied. The statutory Employees Provident Fund was for employees of numerous employers, not exclusively for the assessee's employees. Therefore, the employees of the assessee alone did not participate in that fund, and it could not be said that the transfer was made in trust for them. The Court also expressed doubt whether the Provident Funds Act and its Scheme created a trust in the legal sense. Consequently, Section 58K was not applicable. Regarding the second issue, the Court agreed with the High Court that the expenditure was incurred in the relevant accounting year, had gone irretrievably, and was paid out in that year. The conditions of Section 10(2)(xv) were fully satisfied, and the expenditure was incurred exclusively for the purpose of business. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the payment of Rs. 3,01,772-1-7 by the assessee company to the statutory Employees Provident Fund was capital expenditure within the meaning of Section 58K(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? - Assessee's contention: The High Court held that Section 58K was not applicable as the transfer was not to trustees in trust for the employees of the assessee alone, and the statutory fund was not restricted to the assessee's employees. The High Court also noted that the Provident Funds Act and Scheme did not constitute a trust in the legal sense. - Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the transfer fell under Section 58K, making the expenditure capital in nature and thus not deductible. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,01,772-1-7 is allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? - Assessee's contention: The High Court held that the deduction was allowable under Section 10(2)(xv) as it was an expenditure incurred exclusively for the purpose of business and had gone irretrievably. - Revenue's contention: No specific argument recorded for the revenue on this issue, other than its implicit opposition to the deduction based on the disallowance under Section 58K.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 58K,Section 10(2)(xv),Section 10(1),Section 17,Section 10(4)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

468 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY v. MYSORE SPINNING & MFG. CO. LTD.

Apri: ,o, 1970 (J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Indian Income-tax 1922, s. 58K( 1) a.nd s. !0(2)(xv)-Private Provi- .dent Fund started by assessee company for its en1ployees-Acct11nulation.v paid into Employees Provident Fund under the E111ployees Provident.

Funds Act 19 of 1952-Payment whether of a capital nature within tlie meaning of s. 58K(l) of the Income-tax Act~Whether <11/owable expen .. diture under section 10(2) (xv).

The assessee company-respondent herein-carried on the business o'i manufacture and sale of yarn and cloth. It started in 1914 a Provident Fund for the benefit of its monthly rated employees.

Subsequently, an- other fund was started. These funds were not recognised under the pro- visions of Chapter IXA of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The employees. and the company made contributions to the two funds 'from time to time.

The Employees Provident Funds Act 19 of 1952 came into force on 3 lst October, 1952. Under directions given by the Provident Fund Commis- sioner the assessee company transferred to the statutory Employees Pro- vidend Fund all the accumulati

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 →