COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MOTOR AND GENERAL STORES (P.) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 819/1966Supreme Court[1967] 3 S.C.R. 87602 May 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI OF10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Motor and General Stores (P.) Ltd., owned a cinema house. On September 9, 1955, its Board of Directors authorized the Managing Director to negotiate the sale of the entire concern for Rs. 1,20,000. An agreement for sale was confirmed on October 4, 1955. Subsequently, an "exchange deed" was executed on February 21, 1956, where the assessee received shares of another company, Sri Rama Sugar and Industries Ltd., with a face value of Rs. 1,20,000, in exchange for its cinema house and other assets. For assessment year 1956-57, the Income-tax Officer included Rs. 43,568 as profit under Section 10(2)(vii), representing the excess of realization over the written-down value of the assets. This was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. However, the High Court, on reference, answered the question in favour of the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax authorities were not entitled to treat the transaction as a sale and apply the provisions of Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court found that the transaction was, in essence, one of exchange, where the assessee transferred its cinema house and other assets for shares in another company. There was no price paid or promised for the transfer of properties, but only a consideration in the form of shares. The operative part of the "exchange deed" clearly indicated an exchange of properties for shares, and neither the recitals in the preamble nor the resolutions could control the legal effect of the deed. The Court rejected the revenue's contention to look at the "substance" rather than the "form" of the transaction, stating that in the absence of bad faith or an allegation that the form was a cloak for a different transaction, the taxing statute must be applied according to the legal rights of the parties as embodied in the document. The Court cited precedents like Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. C.I.T. Madras and Duke of Westminster's case to emphasize that the legal rights arising from a document should be respected unless there is evidence of mala fides or fraud. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the transaction dated February 21, 1956, amounts to a sale within the purview of the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contention: The transaction was an exchange of assets for shares, not a sale. Therefore, Section 10(2)(vii) is not applicable. The High Court correctly answered this in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The transaction was, in substance, a sale of the cinema house for a money consideration of Rs. 1,20,000, with the mode of payment being the transfer of shares. The resolutions of the Board of Directors clearly indicated an intention to sell. In revenue matters, the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, should be considered. The revenue relied on the principle that the substance of the transaction should be looked at, citing the intention behind the resolutions. 2. Whether the consideration for the sale is not the market value of the shares as on the date of the transaction, but the face value of the shares? (This issue was rendered moot by the decision on the first issue).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD A v. M/S. MOTOR AND GENERAL STORES (P.) LTD.

May 2, 1967 [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] B I,ncome-tox Act, 1922 s. 10(2) (vli)-Assessee selling 'cinenut attd <Jther assets in exchange for shares in another Company-Whether tran- sactum one of 'sale' or 'exchange'-Therefore whether difference be. tween book-value of assets and exchange consideration taxable-Deter- 1nining the substance rather than form of transaction in revenue .n1atters-Conditions for.

The respondent private Limited Company owned a cinema house and at a meeting of its Board of Directors on September 9, 1955, it was resolved that the Managing Director may be authorised to nego• tiate with a buyer !or the sale of the entire concern with all its equip- ment and machinery etc. for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000. After an agreement had been concluded to effect a sale and had been con- firmed at an extraordinary general meeting of the company on October 4, 1955, an "exchange deed" was entered into on February 21, 1956 =d the consideration was received by the assessee company in the shape of transfer of certain shares of the face value of R

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)(vii)

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →