SHOORJI VALLABHDAS & CO., BOMBAY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 305/1955Supreme Court[1960] 3 S.C.R. 55719 April 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH S.C.R.14 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the commission payable to a managing agent normally accrues at the place where the business is actually done, meaning where the services of the managing agent are performed. Based on the findings of the Appellate Tribunal, which indicated that practically all the important and responsible work of managing the companies was done from the head office in Bombay, with only minor activities like booking and collecting freight at Cochin, the Court concluded that the commission earned by the appellant accrued or arose in British India. The Court distinguished the case from Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co., Bombay, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency & Aden v. Ghunilal B. Mehta, while following Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty and Co. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., Bombay, acted as the managing agent for three steamship companies. The business of two of these companies involved transporting cargo to ports in British India, Cochin State, Travancore State, and Saurashtra. The managing agency agreements stipulated remuneration as a percentage of gross freight charged to shippers, payable where earned. The Income-tax Officer and Excess Profits Tax Officer assessed the appellant on the entire managing commission, asserting it accrued in British India. The appellant contended that a portion of the commission accrued outside British India and should be exempt under Section 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The Appellate Tribunal found that most of the managing work was performed at the head office in Bombay, with only minor activities like booking and collecting freight occurring in Cochin.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the entire managing agency commission accrued or arose in British India, making it liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that a part of the managing agency commission accrued in the Indian States (specifically Cochin) and not in British India. Therefore, it should be entitled to an apportionment of the commission and exemption from tax on the portion earned outside British India, relying on Section 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the entire commission accrued or arose in British India. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments beyond this assertion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14(2)(c),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3 S.C.R. SUPREJVIE: COURT REPORTS SHOORJI VALLABHDAS & CO., BOMBAY .v. 557 THE 1COMMISSIONER OF 1NCOME-T AX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY. (S. K. DAs, .J. L. KAPUR and M. HmAYATHULLAH, JJ.)

Income-tax-Place of accrual of income-Business of trans- porting cargo to ports in and outside British India-Managing Agency commission, a percentage of freightage-Managing agents' services f erf armed in British lndia~Liability to tax of, entire ·manag- --, ing agency commission-Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (15 of 1940), s. 5, proviso 3-lndian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), s. 14(2)(c). , The appellant was the ma~aging agent of a company which was, at the relevant time, carrying on the· business of transporting cargo in boats which touched ports in British India and in the Indian State of Cochin and other States.

Under the managing agency contract the remuneration payable to the appellant was • · expressed in the following terms : "That the managing agent shall as and by way of remuneration for its services receive a commis- sion of ten per cent. of the gross freight charged to the shippers ...

Such remuneration shall be payable to the ·managing. agents at the place w

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 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →