9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the commission paid by the assessee-company to M/s. Western Manufacturing Co. could be disallowed as a capital expenditure in determining the business profits for the years in question. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Commission Payments: The primary issue revolves around whether the commission payments of Rs. 88,514 in the first year and Rs. 65,502 in the second year, made by the assessee-company to M/s. Western Manufacturing Co., should be classified as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessment years in question are 1960-61 and 1961-62. The firm of M/s. Western Manufacturing Co. was engaged in the business of machinery equipment, particularly cranes, and consisted of two sections: manufacturing and selling. The assessee-company acquired the manufacturing section on April 1, 1959, and the selling section on October 1, 1959, for Rs. 3,39,294.38 and a commission of 10% on the value of pending contracts and orders. 2. Income-tax Officer's Decision: The Income-tax Officer disallowed the commission payments as deductions from profits, classifying them as capital expenditure. The reasoning was that the payments were made in consideration of acquiring a capital asset-the right to carry on the vendor's business. 3. Appellate Assistant Commissioner's View: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, emphasizing that the commission paid for unexecuted contracts taken over by the assessee-company was not an admissible deduction. The expenditure was considered capital in nature as it was part of the purchase price for acquiring the business. 4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the taxing authorities that the commission payments were on capital account. The Tribunal noted that the business was transferred as a going concern, including all its stock-in-trade and other assets, and it was impossible to separate the unexecuted contracts from the rest of the assets sold. The benefit of the pending contracts was considered an integral part of the business transfer. 5. Assessee's Argument: The assessee-company contended that the commission payments were revenue expenditure, as they were made for trading contracts taken over and executed by the company. It was argued that the payments should not be considered capital expenditure merely because they were part of the agreement for acquiring the selling section as a going concern. 6. Revenue's Argument: The revenue argued that the commission payments were part of the purchase consideration and thus capital in nature. Reference was made to a letter dated January 24, 1962, from the assessee, suggesting that the commission was paid for services already rendered by the firm to the customers, unrelated to the company's operations. 7. Legal Precedents: The case referenced the leading case of John Smith & Son v. Moore, where unexecuted contracts were considered part of the fixed capital of the business. The decision was explained by Viscount Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd., emphasizing that the nature of the expenditure depends on the terms of the agreement under which the payment is made. 8. Agreement Terms: The agreement dated January 5, 1960, for the sale of the selling section as a going concern included all assets, outstanding contracts, and liabilities. The consideration was Rs. 3,39,294.38 and a commission of 10% on the value of pending contracts upon their execution. The Tribunal found that the entire consideration was for the transfer of the business as a whole, and it was not possible to earmark the commission as payment for the transfer of rights under pending contracts. 9. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the commission payments were part of the purchase price for the business as a whole and were capital in nature. The mere fact that the commission was payable upon execution of the contracts did not convert it into a payment for a trading asset. The Tribunal was justified in disallowing the deductions claimed by the assessee-company. Final Judgment: The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the commission payments were capital expenditure and not admissible as deductions. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the revenue.
|
