THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. CHARI AND CHARI LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 215/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 69209 April 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chari and Chari Ltd., a private limited company, claimed a deduction for commission paid to a director, Mr. T.M. Ayyadurai, for special duties related to a contract with the Central Government for tobacco procurement and resale. The Income-tax Officer allowed only 10% of the net profit for these services, disallowing Rs. 19,796. The company also received Rs. 17,346 as compensation for the premature termination of its managing agency with Nellore Power and Light Company Ltd. The Income-tax Officer included this compensation in the company's income. Appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were unsuccessful. The High Court, on reference, decided both issues in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that (i) the contract with the Government was significant and required special attention, and if the management, acting as prudent businessmen, bona fide determined 30% of net profits as reasonable remuneration for these special services, the revenue authorities were not justified in reviewing or reducing that rate. The revenue authorities had failed to consider the material circumstances relating to the nature of the contract and the special services. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 19,796 was not justifiable. (ii) Compensation for the loss of office or agency is ordinarily a capital receipt, subject to an exception where the agency is one of many, and its termination does not impair the profit-making structure of the assessee. However, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the effect of the termination on the respondent's business, the mere fact that the respondent held other managing agencies was insufficient to bring the case within the exception. The Court agreed with the High Court that the compensation was a capital receipt not liable to tax. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 19,796 out of the remuneration paid to Mr. T.M. Ayyadurai is justifiable under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? - Assessee's contention: The commission of 30% of net profits was bona fide and reasonable remuneration for special services rendered by the director for a crucial government contract, and the revenue authorities were not justified in reviewing this rate. - Revenue's contention: The rate of commission was excessive and not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, warranting disallowance of the excess amount. 2. Whether a sum of Rs. 17,346, representing compensation received by the assessee for the loss of the managing agency of Nellore Power and Light Company Ltd., is income liable to tax? - Assessee's contention: The compensation received for the termination of the managing agency is a capital receipt, not taxable income. - Revenue's contention: The termination of one managing agency did not impair the profit-making structure of the assessee, which held other managing agencies, and therefore the compensation was a revenue receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. CHARI AND CHARI LTD.

April 9, 1965 !K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, J.J.J . Income' Tax Act, 1922, s. 10(2)(xv)-Deduct'on claimed by asses- see of commission paid to director for special duties-Rate of com- mission bona fide determined 'by assessee-Whether open to revenue to review such rate.

Managing Agency-Compensation for termination of-Circum- .stance.! in which such compensation is revenue.

The respondent, a private limited company, carried on business in tol:acco and other commodities and also acted as managing agents for the N company and for two other companies. It had three direc- tors, all oI whom ""re paid a fixed remuneration for attending to the business of the company. On June, 21, 1951, the respondent com- pany was appointed an agent of the Central Government for buying, checking, leaf dcying, and retaining and reselling tobacco under, and in accordance with, directions issued from time to time. On June 22, 1951, the respondent passed a resolution placing one of the directors, A, in "special charge" of all the work under the contract with the Central Government and agreed to pay him 30 per cent of

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 →