COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 179/1954Supreme Court[1957] 1 S.C.R. 114115 May 1957Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Provident Investment Co., Ltd., was the managing agent for two companies and held shares in them. Dalmia Investment Company offered to purchase these shares along with the managing agency. Initially, the agreement involved a transfer of the managing agency. However, by a letter dated October 7, 1946, the arrangement was modified: the assessee would resign as managing agent, and individuals would be appointed directors. The balance of the consideration was paid after the assessee relinquished the managing agency. The Income-tax Officer applied Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, treating the managing agency as a capital asset and computing capital gains. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the relinquishment constituted a transfer. The High Court, on reference, held there was neither a sale nor a transfer of the managing agency within the meaning of Section 12B.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that on a true construction of the letters, the initial agreement was to sell the shares along with the managing agency. However, the letter of October 7, 1946, substituted a new contract, which was a contract of relinquishment rather than a contract of sale concerning the managing agency. The Court also held that it was not open for the Revenue to go behind the agreed statement of the case, which proceeded on the basis that the dispute was whether the transaction regarding the managing agency resulted in capital gains, and that the sum of Rs. 1 crore was the consideration for the sale or relinquishment. Therefore, the transaction was a relinquishment and neither a sale nor a transfer within the meaning of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court's answer was correctly given in the negative. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the transaction concerning the managing agency resulted in capital gains under Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as a sale or transfer. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the transaction was a relinquishment of the managing agency, not a sale or transfer, and therefore did not attract Section 12B. They relied on the High Court's finding. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that (1) there was a concluded contract of sale based on the letters of September 14 and September 30, 1946, with the October 7 letter merely changing the mode of performance, and that the transaction was a sale of the managing agency. (2) Since there was one indivisible consideration for the entire transaction, including the sale of shares and managing agency, and the sale of shares took place, the transaction resulted in capital gains under Section 12B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12B,Section 66A,Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

.. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY ti. • THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO., LTD. '[BHAGWATI, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR JJ.J 1141 Income Tax-Capital gains-Managing agent of company holding shares therein-Agreement of sale of shares and Managing Agency-Sale of shares-Relinquishment of Managing Agency by "'•')' of resignation-If amounts to a sale or transfer of Managing Agency-Agreed Statement of Case for reference to High Court-- Whether binding on the parties-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), s. 128. The respondent company was the managing agent ot two other companies holding certain shares therein. D wrote two letters to the responJ~nt on September 14, 1946, offering to purchase some of those shares together with the managing agency and agreeing to pay certain sums as earnest money on the accept- ance of the offer and to pay the balance after the transfer of the managing agency was sanctioned by the general body of share- holders.

By a letter dated September 30, 1946, the respondent accepted the offer on condition of a sum of Rs. I crore being paid out of the consideration as compensation for the loss of the manag-

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 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →