SASSOON J. DAVLD & CO. (P) LTD., BOMBAY vs. C.L.T., BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2501/1972Supreme Court[1979] 3 S.C.R. 87803 May 1979Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: N.L. UNTWALIA, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH19 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee company for retrenchment compensation, termination compensation, and annuity payments to the managing director was allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Court clarified that the three tests laid down in Gordon Woodroffee Leather Manufacturing Co. v. The Commr. of Income-tax should be read disjunctively. The present case satisfied the third test: expenditure incurred on the ground of commercial expediency to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business. The Court emphasized that the expression 'wholly and exclusively' does not mean 'necessarily' and that it is for the assessee to decide on business expenditures. Even if a third party benefits, if the expenditure is for the purpose of the assessee's trade and satisfies the legal tests, it is deductible. The company's decision to reduce its wage bill through termination and re-employment was considered a commercial expediency. The Court found the High Court erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 1.27 lakhs for the assessment year 1957-58 and Rs. 16,885 for each of the three succeeding assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd., decided in January 1956 to terminate the services of 22 employees effective March 31, 1956, and pay them retrenchment and termination compensation. Subsequently, the shareholders of the company entered into an agreement with Tatas to sell their shares for Rs. 155 lacs. This agreement stipulated that the compensation and gratuity payable to terminated employees, along with an annuity to the managing director, would be deducted from the purchase consideration. For assessment year 1957-58, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1.64 lacs for retrenchment and termination compensation. In the three subsequent assessment years, Rs. 16,885 was claimed as annuity paid to the managing director. The Income Tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed these claims, viewing the termination as a condition of the share sale rather than business expediency. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed this, stating the expenses were a result of the bargain between Davids and Tatas and benefited a third party.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the retrenchment compensation and compensation for termination of services paid by the assessee company to its employees, and the annuity paid to the managing director, are allowable as deductions under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, considering the expenditure was incurred as part of an agreement for the sale of the company's shares. Assessee's Contention: The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business, satisfying the third test laid down in Gordon Woodroffee Leather Manufacturing Co. v. The Commr. of Income-tax, which states that the sum was expended on the ground of commercial expediency to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business. The company benefited from reduced establishment expenses, and the phrase 'wholly and exclusively' does not imply 'necessarily'. Revenue's Contention: The termination of services was not due to business expediency but was a condition of the share sale agreement. The expenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the business purposes of the company as Davids and Tatas were indirectly benefited, and there was no necessity to retrench all employees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[. B c D E 878 SASSOON J. DAVID & CO. (P) LTD., BOMBAY v. C.I.T., BOMBAY May 3, 1979 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Indian Income Tt~x Act 1922-Section 10(2)(xv)-Scvpe of-Re- trenchment compeTJ.Sation paid to emplOyees whose services were terminated-If an allowable deductiolt-"Wiwlly and exclusively" meaning of-Benefit to third party-Whether a consideradon for not allowing deduction.

In January, 1956 the assessee company whose assets had been valued at -·-_.'f Rs. 155 lacs as on December 31, 1955 decided to terminate the services of 22 ( of its employees with effect from 31st March, 1956 and to pay them retrench- ment compensation and compensation for termination of employment. There- after Davids, who held the share~ of the company entered into an agreement with Taw to sell to them all the wares for Rs. 155 lacs. The agreement pro- vided that compensation and gr~tuity payable to the Directors and employees whose :!ervices had been terminated and the annuity payable to the managing director should be deducted from the purchase consideration.

The assessee claimed deduction under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 of a sum o

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 →