COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 601/1965Supreme Court[1967] 1 S.C.R. 34815 September 1966Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA OF INCOME5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent, Nainital Bank Ltd., suffered a loss of jewellery pledged by its constituents due to dacoity. The bank settled claims by crediting the value of the jewellery against amounts advanced to constituents. If the market value exceeded the advance, the difference was paid to the constituent; if it was less, the difference was recovered. In 1952, the bank paid Rs. 48,891, and in 1953, Rs. 1,21,760. The bank claimed these amounts as deductions for assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claims. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also rejected the claims. The High Court, on reference, allowed the deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the amounts paid to constituents constituted 'expenditure' under Section 10(2)(xv). The Court reasoned that the settlements were bilateral, involving the constituent admitting liability for the advance and the bank admitting liability for the value of the pledged jewellery. When the bank paid the difference, it effectively paid the value of the jewellery against the constituent's repayment. This act of paying the difference was considered expenditure equal to the value of the jewellery. Regarding the second issue, the Court found that while the bank might not have been under a strict legal obligation to compensate for the stolen jewellery, doing so was a commercial expediency to maintain its goodwill and business, especially in rural areas. Compensating constituents for the loss was a necessary step to preserve its business and clientele. Therefore, the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amounts credited to constituents' accounts as the value of stolen jewellery, against amounts advanced, constitute 'expenditure' within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or merely forbearance to enforce a demand against constituents. - Assessee's argument: The amounts paid were expenditure laid out for the purpose of business. - Revenue's argument: By writing off amounts due from constituents, the bank merely forbore to enforce its demand, which is not expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv). 2. Whether, in any event, the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the bank's business. - Assessee's argument: The expenditure was incurred to maintain goodwill and business relations, thus serving the purpose of the business. - Revenue's argument: The bank was under no legal obligation to pay the cost of the jewellery, so the expenditure was not for the purpose of business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 10(I),Section 10(2)(xi),Section 66(2),Section 66A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSJO.NER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. v. NAINITAL BANK LTD.

September 15, 1966. (J. C. SHAH, V. RAMA5WAMI MID V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J Indian /nt:ome-tax Act, 1922, s. 10(2) (xv)--Jewellery p/edgtd with bank stolen--Bank crediting cost oj jewellery to constituents accounts and setting ofi against such credit amounts advanced to them-Anwunts so credited whether expenditure laid Otlt for the purpose of the business.

Jewellery pledged with the respondent bank by its constituents was stolen by dacoi1".

The bank settled the claims of the constituents by crediting the value of the jewellery again.st the amounts advanced to the constituenl.t. When tho market value of the jewellery pledged exceeded the amount advanced the difference was paid by the bank to the constituent; where the market ,...iue of the jewellery was les.. than the amount advanced the difference was recovered from the constituent.

Under the adjust- ments made in this manner the Bank in the year 1952 made a totnl oay- ment of Rs. 48,891 and in the year 1953 the Bank paid Rs. 1,21,760. In the relurna for the a=.ment year 1953-54 and 1954-55 the Bank claimed in computing its taxable income the amounia;:,c:!: to the

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 →