THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. K.T.M.T.M ABDUL KAYOOM

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 16/1960Supreme Court1961 INSC 31923 November 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH28 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom, a firm dealing in conch shells, obtained a three-year lease for gathering specific types of shells from the sea along the South Arcot District coastline. The lease, effective from July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1947, required an annual rent of Rs. 6111/-. For the assessment year 1946-47, the assessee sought to deduct this lease rent as a business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, arguing it was not capital expenditure. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed this claim. The Appellate Tribunal, while acknowledging the Privy Council decision in Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, G.P. & Berar, felt bound by a Madras High Court Full Bench decision and referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision (Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ., with Das, J. dissenting), held that the expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible. The majority reasoned that the assessee, by taking the lease, entered into a new speculative business of fishing for shells, rather than merely purchasing stock-in-trade. The payment was for obtaining an enduring asset – the exclusive right to fish – and was not directly related to the shells themselves. This was distinguished from cases where raw materials or stock-in-trade are acquired. The lease granted a right to fish, and the existence and quantity of shells were uncertain, making it a speculative venture. The payment was for reserving the coastline for future fishing, not for the shells themselves. The judgment allowed the appeal, reversing the High Court's decision. The dissenting opinion by Das, J. held the expenditure to be on revenue account, citing Mohanlal Hargovind and Assam Bengal Cement Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and stating the lease acquired stock-in-trade rather than an enduring asset.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 6111/- made by the assessee under the terms of the agreement was an expenditure of a capital nature or a revenue expenditure deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contentions: - The expenditure of Rs. 6111/- was not of a capital nature but was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. - The payment was to secure the stock-in-trade for its business, analogous to the Privy Council decision in Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, G.P. & Berar. Revenue's contentions: - The expenditure was capital in nature, not deductible from profits. - The lease represented the acquisition of an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive right to fish, rather than payment for stock-in-trade. - The case was distinguishable from Mohanlal Hargovind and applicable to the Supreme Court's decision in Pringle Industries Ltd., Secunderabad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

'- lf/'51 -----------·-- -51s SUPREl\IB COURT REPORTS [l!JG2] SUPP. THE CO:.\HIISSIONER OF INCOi\IE-TAX, MADRAS v. IC T .. .ilI. T. l\I. ABDUL KAYOOi\I (S. K: DAs, J. L. KAPUR and l\I. HrnAYATULLAII, JJ.) , - -- · - Income Tax~Capital Expenditure-Dealer in conch •hells-Lease money paicifor gatherin~ shells from sea-Nature ojexpenditure-Income·tax Act, 1922(11 of l!J22), s.10 (2)(xy). _The assessee firm canicd on the business in purchase and sale of conch shells. It obtained a lease for 3 years for gathering specified types of shells from the sea along the coastline abutting on the South Arcot District.

It sought to deduct the amount paid as lease money- from its profits from business on the ground that this \vas an expenditure not of a capital nature -but wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. _ under s. 10(2)(xv) of_ the Income Tax Act. - . II.Zd, (per Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ., Das, J. di'5ent• ing) that the expenditure was capital expenditure and could not be deducted from the profits. The business of the assessce - was buying and selling shells but when it took the lease it · went in for a new speculative business of fishing for

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 →