COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. WEST BENGAL vs. MESSRS .JEEWANLAL LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 78/1952Supreme Court[1954] 1 S.C.R. 18908 October 1953Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, P.N. BHAGWATI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the assessment of excess profits tax for five chargeable accounting periods ending December 31, 1939, to 1943. The respondent company, Jeewanlal Ltd., has a capital of Rs. 3,600,000. Aluminium Limited, a Canadian company, held a majority of its shares (over 359,000). Aluminium Limited, as per the respondent's articles of association, appointed three directors, later reduced to one, Mr. L. G. Bash. Mr. Bash, along with other directors, held a small number of shares (210 or 400). Aluminium Limited authorized Mr. Bash to vote on its behalf in general meetings. The respondent company claimed it was director-controlled, entitling it to a 10% statutory percentage for standard profits, rather than 8%. This was rejected by the Excess Profits Tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner but accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which referred the question to the Calcutta High Court. The High Court answered in the affirmative, leading to this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the respondent company was not a director-controlled company. The Court reasoned that 'controlling interest' in a company typically means holding the majority of vote-carrying shares and being registered as such. While beneficial ownership is not strictly necessary, the directors must be the registered holders of the majority of shares. In this case, Aluminium Limited was the registered holder of the majority shares, and Mr. L. G. Bash was merely an agent authorized to vote on its behalf. The votes cast were those of Aluminium Limited, not Mr. Bash's. The authority given to an agent to vote does not transfer the controlling interest, which remains with the shareholder who can revoke the authority. The Court distinguished the case from situations where directors hold shares as trustees. The analogy to British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. was deemed inapt. The Court allowed the appeal, reversing the High Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the directors of the respondent company had a controlling interest in it as contemplated by section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Assessee's contention (as understood from the High Court and Tribunal's decision): The respondent company argued that Mr. L. G. Bash, as the authorized representative of Aluminium Limited (the majority shareholder), had the power to exercise the voting rights of the majority shares. Therefore, he, and by extension the directors, effectively controlled the company's affairs and had a 'controlling interest'. This was supported by analogy to the reasoning in British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that for a company to be director-controlled, the directors must themselves hold a majority of the vote-carrying shares and be registered as such. The mere authorization of a director by a majority shareholder to vote on its behalf does not constitute a controlling interest for the directors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(21),Section 66(1),Section 66-A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

r • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 189 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. WEST BENGAL v. MESSRS .• TEEW ANLAL LTD. [PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., S. R. DAS, V1VIAN BosR, GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Excess Profits Tare Act (XV of 1940), s. 2(11)-Director con- trolled company-Definition-Directors aidhori.sed by another com- pany holding majority of shares to vote in respect of the shares- Company, whether director controlled.

Ordinarily a company will be a "company, the directors where- of have a controlling interest therein" for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, only if the directors thereof hold, and are entered in the share register as holders of, a majority of the vote-carrying shares of the company. It is not necessary that they must have a beneficial interest in such shares, but the mere fact that one of the directors of the company has been authorised by another company which held a majority of shares in the former company, to vote on its behalf in respect of the shares held by it, will not make the former company a director controlled company.

Glasgow Expanded Metal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenite (12 Tax Oas. 573), Commissioners of Inlan

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 →