L.B. SUGAR FACTORY & OIL MILLS (P) LTD. PILIBHIT vs. C.L.T. U.P., LUCKNOW

CIVIL APPEAL No. 298/1973Supreme Court[1981] 1 S.C.R. 52326 August 1980Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: P.N. BHAGWATI, A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH9 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. Regarding the Rs. 22,332 contribution towards the Deoni Dam-Majhala Road, the Court held it was rightly disallowed. The reasoning was that this amount was contributed without any legal obligation, purely as an act of good citizenship, and could not be considered as laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. For the Rs. 50,000 contribution towards roads under the Sugarcane Development Scheme, the Court held it was in the nature of revenue expenditure and allowable as a deduction. The reasoning was based on the analogy of the Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. case, emphasizing that the expenditure was incurred for running the business or working it with a view to produce profits without the assessee gaining any enduring benefit. The Court distinguished the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. case based on its peculiar facts. The ratio is that while contributions made out of good citizenship are not deductible, expenditures that facilitate business operations and are essential for the efficient conduct of business, even if for infrastructure development benefiting a wider area, can be considered revenue expenditure if they do not result in an enduring capital asset for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, L.B. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd., a private limited company, claimed deductions of Rs. 22,332 and Rs. 50,000 for the assessment year 1956-57. The Rs. 22,332 was contributed towards the construction of the Deoni Dam-Majhala Road at the Collector's request. The Rs. 50,000 was a 1/3rd share of the cost for constructing roads around its factory under a Sugarcane Development Scheme. The Income Tax Officer disallowed both amounts, deeming them capital expenditure. The assessee's appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal failed due to a difference of opinion between Tribunal members, with the third member agreeing with the Accountant Member that the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sum of Rs. 22,332, contributed towards the construction of the Deoni Dam-Majhala Road, is admissible as a deduction in computing the taxable profits and gains of the assessee's business under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as revenue expenditure. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 50,000, contributed towards the construction of roads under a Sugarcane Development Scheme, is admissible as a deduction in computing the taxable profits and gains of the assessee's business under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as revenue expenditure. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that both expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and were of a revenue nature, thus deductible under Section 10(2)(xv). The assessee relied on the principle that expenditure facilitating business operations or enabling more profitable conduct, without touching fixed capital, is revenue expenditure. The assessee also cited Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. C.I.T. to support its claim for the Rs. 50,000 expenditure. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that both expenditures were capital in nature and not deductible. The Revenue relied on the High Court's finding that the expenditure was not related to the business activity as such and not incurred in the ordinary course of business. The Revenue also referred to the decision in Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. v. C.I.T.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

' . 523 L.B. SUGAR FACTORY & OIL MILLS (P) LTD. PII.IBHIT v. C.l.T. U.P., LUCKNOW August 26, 1980 [P. N. BHAGWATI, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Capital Expenditure and Revenue Expenditure, test of-Contribution made lby the assessee towards the construction of dam and later on contributing 1 /3rd .cost towards the laying down of the road in the area around the factory ur.der oa Sugarcane Development Scheme, whether capital expenditure and hence .deductible expenditure under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The appellant, assessee· is a private limited company carrying on business <>f manufacture and sale of crystal sugar in a factory situated in Pilibhit in ·the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the accounting year ending 30th September, A B c 1955,' the assessee contributed a sum of Rs. 22,332 towards the construction of D "Deoni dam-Majhala Road at the request of the Collector and a further sum <>f Rs. 50,000, being 1 /3rd share of the cost of construction of roads in the ·area around its factory under a Sugar Cane Development Scheme, to the State· ·of Uttar Pradesh. These two sums were claimed by the assessee as deductible ·expen

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 93 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →