1974 (8) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Act, Legal Representative, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Share Income

Issues Involved: Admissibility of increased remuneration to the managing director under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Increased Remuneration:
The main issue was whether the increased remuneration to the managing director, Sri D. N. Sinha, was an admissible item of expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 2,000 out of the Rs. 12,000 claimed for each assessment year, reasoning that the increase in remuneration was not commensurate with the increase in turnover and that the business's growth was due to factors other than the managing director's additional services. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the disallowance to Rs. 800 per year, considering the family control over the company and the modest increase in business volume. The Tribunal upheld this view, applying the test of whether an outsider would be paid the same remuneration for similar work, concluding that the remuneration was excessive given the company's profits.

2. Tribunal's Test for Admissibility:
The Tribunal applied the test of whether the company would have employed an outsider at the same remuneration. The Tribunal found that the net profits were meager and concluded that an outsider would not be employed at Rs. 1,000 per month. The Tribunal's decision was based on the trading results and the modest increase in profits, which did not justify the increased remuneration.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles:
The judgment referenced several legal precedents, including:
- Newtone Studios Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: The court held that the Income-tax Act does not empower the taxing authority to determine the reasonableness of the remuneration fixed by the assessee.
- Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: The Supreme Court observed that the admissibility of an expenditure is a question of law and that the Income-tax Officer can consider all relevant factors in determining the deductibility of remuneration.
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Walchand & Co. Private Ltd.: The Supreme Court emphasized that the reasonableness of expenditure should be judged from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and that the Tribunal should not determine the remuneration to be paid to an employee.
- Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: The Supreme Court reiterated that the taxing authority could disallow expenditure if it was excessive due to extra-commercial considerations.

4. Tribunal's Justification and Court's Reframing of Questions:
The Tribunal's justification for disallowance was based on the assumption that an outsider would be available at a lower salary, which the court found speculative. The court reframed the questions into one single question to address whether the disallowance was justified under section 10(2)(xv).

5. Court's Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the portion of the allowance. The court held that the reasonableness of the expenditure should be judged from the businessman's perspective and that the revenue authorities could not substitute their views for the assessee's. The court found no evidence that the assessee acted against the company's interest and noted that the Tribunal's assumption about the availability of an outsider at a lower salary was speculative. The court answered the reframed question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and awarded costs to the assessee.

Separate Judgments:
The judgment was delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji, with Janah J. concurring.

← Previous Next →