DHARAMVIR DHIR. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 448/1959Supreme Court[1961] 3 S.C.R. 35905 December 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dharamvir Dhir, entered into a contract to work collieries. Lacking funds, he secured an agreement with the Mohini Thapar Charitable Trust. The Trust agreed to advance up to Rs. 1.5 lacs, with the option to withdraw funds and cease further advances. The Trust was not liable for losses. In return, the assessee was to pay 6% annual interest on advances and 11/16th of the net profits. The assessee paid these amounts for assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The interest was allowed as a deduction, but the share of profits was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who found the payments not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The High Court upheld this.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to the deductions claimed. The Court emphasized that the case must be decided according to the tenor of the agreement and the circumstances. For a deduction to be justified, the sum given up must be for reasons of commercial expediency. Even if voluntary, it is claimable as long as it was incurred for the assessee's benefit, such as for carrying on their business. The Court found no evidence to suggest the assessee could have made better arrangements or would have lost the contract had they not entered into the agreement with the Trust. Therefore, in a commercial sense, the payments constituted expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. The Court distinguished the Pondicherry Railway Company case. The High Court was in error, and the questions referred should have been answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellant. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgments and orders were set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, Rs. 72,963-12-0 was a revenue expenditure deductible under section 10(2)(iii) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, Rs. 76,526-1-3 was a revenue expenditure deductible under section 10(2)(iii) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the payments were revenue expenditures deductible under the specified sections. The assessee relied on the principle that payments made for reasons of commercial expediency, even if voluntary, are deductible if incurred for the assessee's benefit, such as carrying on business. The assessee contended that there was no evidence to suggest better arrangements could have been made or that the contract would have been lost without this agreement. The assessee cited Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. M/s. Jaggannath Kissonlal, M/s. Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, and Strong v. Woodijield. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the payments were not wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. The High Court, in upholding the lower authorities, considered the relationship between the parties and the proportion of the payment to the advances made, deeming it an "absurdly large sum" and not a genuine business expenditure. The revenue relied on the High Court's reasoning and implicitly the decisions of the lower appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(iii),Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 359 DHARAMVIR DHIR. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Income-tax-Deductions-Expenditure iticurred for purpose of trade-Assessee paying share of profits in return of advance made- Whether allowable deduction-Indian Income-tax Act, I922 (II of z922), ss. IO (2)(iii) and zo(2)(xv).

The assessee entered into a contract for working certain collieries. As he did not have the requisite funds, he entered into an agreement with M whereunder M was to advance a sum upto Rs. rt lacs, but could withdraw the money at any time and stop further advances and was not liable for any losses; the assessee was to pay interest on the advances at 6% per annum in addition to a sum equivalent to II/16th of the net profits of the business. In pursuance of the agreement M made advances to the assessee and the assessee paid interest and n/16th of his net profits to M. The assessee claimed these amounts paid to M as allowable de<luctions under s. I0[2)(iii) or under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. The amount paid as interest was allow- ed but the other sums paid were not allowed on the groun

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 →