1996 (1) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of Rs. 99 lakhs as revenue expenditure.
2. Supersession of the protocol dated January 28, 1972, by the agreement dated March 18, 1972.
3. Reasonableness and commercial expediency of the Rs. 99 lakhs compensation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Allowability of Rs. 99 lakhs as Revenue Expenditure
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 99 lakhs paid by the assessee (MICO) to GEC for the premature termination of its distributor's agreement is an allowable deduction as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the payment was made in the best business interests of MICO, guided by commercial expediency, and represented compensation for the premature termination of the agreement. The Tribunal further held that the compensation agreed to be paid to GEC was reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue 2: Supersession of the Protocol by the Agreement
The Tribunal interpreted clause 13 of the agreement dated March 18, 1972, and the terms embodied in the protocol dated January 28, 1972. It held that the protocol had not been superseded by the agreement. The Tribunal opined that the intention of the parties was to treat the protocol as paramount and that clause 13 of the agreement was incorporated only to fulfill the requirement of law. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that clause 13 of the agreement explicitly superseded all prior agreements, including the protocol. The High Court concluded that the protocol dated January 28, 1972, did not survive the rigors of clause 13 of the 1972 agreement and was, therefore, non-existent at the time the payment in question was made by MICO.

Issue 3: Reasonableness and Commercial Expediency of the Compensation
The Tribunal found that the payment of Rs. 99 lakhs was made by MICO on the grounds of commercial expediency, as it would have otherwise faced protracted litigation and consequent disruption in the distribution of its products. The Tribunal noted that GEC had been operating in the Northern territories for over 20 years and was in a position to seriously prejudice MICO's business if the distributorship had been permanently terminated without any compensation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, emphasizing that the commercial expediency of a businessman's decision to incur an expenditure cannot be tested on the touchstone of strict legal liability. The High Court concluded that the payment was justified by considerations of commercial expediency and was, therefore, an allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the questions referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative and against the Revenue, except for the question regarding the survival of the protocol, which was answered in the negative. The Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 99 lakhs by MICO to GEC was an allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act.