SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 557/1965Supreme Court[1967] 1 S.C.R. 39219 September 1966Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI A8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (the assessee) carried on the business of cotton spinning and weaving. The Textile Commissioner issued an order on February 7, 1946, prohibiting the company from selling or delivering yarn except to specified persons. The company continued to deliver yarn to outside weavers until February 20, 1946, which was seized. The company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras seeking to prevent seizure of yarn and restoration of seized yarn. This petition was dismissed, and the appeal to the Privy Council was also dismissed. The company incurred Rs. 20,035 in prosecuting the writ petition and Rs. 5,912 as costs awarded to the government in the unsuccessful appeal. For assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, the company claimed these amounts as deductible expenses under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The departmental authorities, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court rejected these claims.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that expenditure incurred to resist in a civil proceeding the enforcement of a measure, legislative or executive, which imposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business, or to obtain a declaration that the measure is invalid, would be admissible under Section 10(2)(xv) if other conditions are satisfied, even if it does not directly relate to earning income. The Court clarified that the expenditure may not be denied merely because the proceeding failed or because the assessee persisted in launching the proceeding. The Tribunal's finding that the company did not act in violation of the order dated February 20, 1946, was crucial. The High Court's assumption that the company had contravened the law was erroneous as it relied on observations from previous judgments rather than the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Court also stated that the expression 'for the purpose of the business' is wider than 'for the purpose of earning profits'. The question referred to the High Court was answered in the affirmative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the expenses of Rs. 20,035 incurred in assessment year 1949-50 and Rs. 5,912 in assessment year 1950-51, being costs paid to the government following an unsuccessful legal challenge, are allowable deductions under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business. Assessee's Contention: The expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, as they were necessary to resist an order that interfered with its business operations. The failure of the proceedings does not disentitle the claim. Revenue's Contention: The expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business because the company had violated a prohibitory order, and the petition was to secure protection against prosecution and for the return of goods in respect of which an offense was committed. Reliance was placed on H. Hirjee's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI A \' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS September 19, 1966 (J. c. SHAH Al\D v. Bl!ARGAVA, JJ.] Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), •· 10(2)(xv)-Expendlturc tn- -cun-ed for proceedings ·to prevent enforcement of order interfering with buslMss-lf admissible deduction.

The assessee-mill claimed deduction under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Indian lllcomo-tax Act of the expemm incurred by It and tho costs awarded ID Government in respect of unsuccessful writ petition and appeals there- from.

The deduction was disallowed by the depanmental authorities, and tho question was answered against tho asaessce by tho High Court. ID appeals to this Court HEID : Tiie appeal must be allowed.

The proceeding started by the as.,cssee \Vas in relation 10 the busines5 of the assessee.

Bxpcnditure incurred to resist in a civil proceeding the enforcement of a measur&--legislative or executive, which imposes restriction• on tho Q.rrying on of a business Qr to obtain a declarat100 that the mea;urc is invalid would. if other conditions are •atmied, be admissible under a. 10(2) (xv) as a permissible deduction In the computation of taxable Income, even tho

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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →