1953 (10) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Whether the payment of Rs. 5000 by the assessee to Mr. Sambamurthi was capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras involved a dispute regarding the nature of a payment made by an assessee to acquire goodwill. The assessee, a registered accountant, entered into an agreement with Mr. Sambamurthi, under which the assessee became the owner of the Karaikudi branch. The pivotal question was whether the payment of Rs. 5000 by the assessee to Mr. Sambamurthi constituted capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The agreement specified that the Karaikudi office became the sole concern of the assessee, and the goodwill was to be returned at half the net profits for three years, limited to Rs. 5000 for each year. The agreement also outlined conditions for Sambamurthi to take cases of the Karaikudi office. The department and the Appellate Tribunal considered the payment as capital expenditure, leading to the dispute.

The court referred to the test applied in similar cases to differentiate between capital and revenue expenditure. Citing a judgment of the Bombay High Court, the court emphasized that if the assessee acquired the goodwill by paying a lump sum or fixed amounts in instalments, it would be deemed capital expenditure. However, if the payment was for the use of goodwill without acquiring ownership, it would be categorized as revenue expenditure. The court analyzed the terms of the agreement between the assessee and Mr. Sambamurthi, concluding that the assessee acquired the goodwill itself in consideration of paying the amount in three instalments. Therefore, the court determined that the expenditure was rightly classified as capital expenditure.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of considering the payment of Rs. 5000 by the assessee to Mr. Sambamurthi as capital expenditure. The court found that the agreement clearly indicated the acquisition of goodwill, not just its use, by the assessee in exchange for the payment in instalments. Consequently, the court answered the question in the affirmative against the assessee, who was directed to pay the costs of the respondent amounting to Rs. 250.