P. vs. RAGHAVA REDDI AND ANOTHER versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 325/1960Supreme Court1962 INSC 716 January 1962Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant firm, engaged in the mica business, exported mica to Japan during the accounting years 1948-49 and 1949-50 (assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51). Due to exchange control restrictions, commission payable to the Japanese agent, San-Ei Trading Co. Ltd. (a non-resident), was not remitted. Instead, the appellant, as per agreement, credited these amounts to a separate account held on behalf of the Japanese company. The Income-tax authorities treated the appellant as a 'statutory agent' and assessed it on these commission amounts. The Tribunal cancelled the assessment, holding that the income had accrued in Japan and was not received in the taxable territory. The High Court, on reference, ruled in favour of the Department, leading to this appeal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that there was a sufficient business connection between the assessee and the Japanese company to treat the assessee as an agent under Section 43. The Court further held that the commission amounts, once credited to the account of the Japanese company in the appellant's books and held for and on behalf of the Japanese company at its disposal, constituted receipt in the taxable territory within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Court clarified that clauses (a) and (c) of Section 4(1) can be read disjunctively, meaning that income received in the taxable territories is chargeable under Section 4(1)(a) irrespective of whether it accrued or arose within those territories. The reasoning was that after the amounts were credited, the appellant held the money as a depositee for the Japanese company, similar to a bank crediting a customer's account. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant was a 'statutory agent' for the purposes of Section 43 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the commission income was received by the Japanese company in the taxable territory, making it chargeable under Section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contentions: - The appellant argued that a mere entry in the account books did not constitute receipt by the Japanese company, and Section 4(1)(a) should not be applied without a specific deeming provision. - It was also contended that Section 4(1)(a) was delimited by Section 4(1)(c), implying that income must accrue or arise in the taxable territory for it to be chargeable. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue contended that the appellant was a statutory agent and the income was received in the taxable territory. - The revenue relied on the judgment in Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1953) 23 I.T.R. 152, which held that Section 4(1)(a) is general and applies to residents and non-residents alike, and that actual receipt in India is sufficient for chargeability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43,Section 4(1)(a),Section 4(1)(c),Section 4(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1962 ,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' ..

PriNJI L1d. v. U11Um o/ lntlia K•pur .J. J!u;;t 5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP. which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell on the business of transport In res1wot of !IBRl'R~· ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q.

The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso above quoted and computed the tax payable with- out such rebatfl. ft was contonderl on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in that it discriminates betweon machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the legislBture from r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from 11mong~t various classes of machinery for the purpose of giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en ma.de in the present case.

The petition is wholly without merit and is thcr1Jforc dismiHSed a.nd the rule is discharged. The p••titioncr will

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 43

All 72 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →