1962 (3) TMI 6 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the two sums of Rs. 1, 36, 903 and Rs. 2, 00, 625 are income of the previous year ended March 31 1948 ? Whether they represent an item of expenditure permissible under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 in computing the assessee s income of that previous year from its managing agency business ? Held that - A mere book-keeping entry cannot be income unless income has actually resulted and in the present case by the change of the terms the income which accrued and was received consisted of the lesser amounts and not the larger. This was not a gift by the assessee-firm to the managed companies. The reduction was a part of the agreement entered into by the assessee-firm to secure a long-term managing agency arrangement for the two companies which it had floated. Thus the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that on the facts of this case the larger income neither accrued nor was received by the assessee-firm. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of larger commission as income for the previous year under Indian Income-tax Act, permissibility of claimed expenditure under section 10(2)(xv), agreement to reduce commission, accrual and receipt of income, applicability of precedents.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment addressed an appeal regarding the assessment of a larger commission as income for the previous year under the Indian Income-tax Act. The case involved an agreement by an assessee-firm, acting as managing agents for shipping companies, to reduce their commission from 10% to 2.5% of freight. The High Court certified the case as fit under section 66A(2) for appeal. The main contention was whether the income had accrued to the assessee-firm in the year of account and was thus assessable. The High Court, following precedents, held that the larger income neither accrued nor was received by the assessee-firm, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The judgment delved into the details of the agreement between the assessee-firm and the shipping companies, where the firm voluntarily agreed to reduce the managing agency commission. The court analyzed the timing of events, including the resolution to reduce the commission during the previous year. It was emphasized that for income to be taxable, it must actually result, and a mere bookkeeping entry does not suffice. The court highlighted that the reduction in commission was not a gift but a strategic decision by the assessee-firm to secure long-term managing agency arrangements.

The court referred to a previous case involving similar circumstances where it was held that the right to commission ceased to exist under the original agreement once the decision to reduce the commission was made. This principle was applied to the current case, emphasizing that income tax liability is based on actual income received or accrued. The judgment concluded that the larger income did not accrue or was received by the assessee-firm, aligning with the High Court's decision.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the larger commission did not accrue or was received by the assessee-firm for the previous year. The judgment emphasized the distinction between hypothetical income and actual income, highlighting that for income to be taxable, it must materialize. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling, and costs were awarded to the respondent.