1973 (1) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner is a Hindu undivided family and Sri Jugal Kishore is the karta thereof. He was a director on behalf of the Hindu undivided family in Messrs. Ram Chand Sugar (Private) Ltd. - director pays some amount to other directors for the loss during his management of the Company - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 26,000 under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xv) or section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of deduction under sections 10(1), 10(2)(xv), and 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for a Hindu undivided family regarding a loss incurred by a company due to uncollected subsidy.

Analysis:
The High Court was tasked with determining whether a Hindu undivided family, acting as a shareholder in a company, could claim a deduction of Rs. 26,000 under sections 10(1), 10(2)(xv), or 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved the petitioner, a Hindu undivided family with Sri Jugal Kishore as the karta, who was a director in a company named Messrs. Ram Chand Sugar (Private) Ltd. The company faced a situation where a substantial stock of unlifted sugar remained due to the control price being higher than the market price, and a potential government subsidy was anticipated. As a result, the company directors, including Sri Jugal Kishore, requested the release of the sugar stock from the government and subsequently sold it at market price, forfeiting the expected subsidy of Rs. 1,04,000. In response to blame from other directors for this loss, Sri Jugal Kishore and another director paid Rs. 13,000 each to the dissenting directors, totaling Rs. 26,000, which the assessee sought to deduct.

The court analyzed the claim for deduction under sections 10(1), 10(2)(xv), and 12 of the Act. It was determined that the loss incurred by the company due to the unclaimed subsidy was not a business loss or expenditure that could be claimed by the assessee, a mere shareholder, under the mentioned sections. The court emphasized that the company's loss was distinct from the individual shareholder's loss, and the payment made by the assessee to compensate other directors did not qualify as a business expenditure. The court rejected the argument that the payment was made to earn dividends or director's fee, as there was no evidence to suggest that withholding the payment would have impacted the petitioner's entitlement to dividends or fees. Consequently, the court held that the amount in question could not be claimed under section 12 of the Act either.

In conclusion, the court answered the question of deduction in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The department was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200. The judgment underscores the distinction between company losses and individual shareholder expenses, emphasizing that payments made in such circumstances do not qualify for deduction under the specified sections of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.