1959 (3) TMI 7 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the respondent s admitted income under certain heads is chargeable to income-tax under the provisions of section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)? Held that - As to the nature of the service which the association performed in respect of the assistants, the payment of the fee was definitely related to that service. It is, therefore, plain that the case fell within section 10(6) of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the question referred to the High Court should have been answered in the affirmative, and that the High Court was in error in giving its opinion to the contrary. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the income received from members for authorized assistants is chargeable to income-tax.
2. Whether the income received for enlisting names of companies on the quotations list is chargeable to income-tax.
3. Interpretation of "performing specific services" under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Income from Authorized Assistants:

The respondent company, a limited liability company, received sums of Rs. 60,750 as entrance fees and Rs. 15,687 as subscriptions from its members for authorized assistants. The Income-tax Officer held these sums liable to income-tax, rejecting the contention that authorized assistants were members of the company. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the authorized assistants were not members and the fees were remuneration for specific services. The High Court of Calcutta, however, disagreed, stating that the sums were not received from authorized assistants but from members, and thus did not fall under section 10(6).

2. Income for Enlisting Names of Companies:

The respondent company also received Rs. 16,000 for enlisting names of companies on the quotations list. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the assessable income, considering it remuneration for specific services. The Tribunal agreed, but the High Court held that the company did not perform specific services for its members for remuneration as contemplated under section 10(6).

3. Interpretation of "Performing Specific Services":

The High Court interpreted section 10(6) to mean that the association must perform definite acts in the nature of services for its members, with remuneration directly related to those services. The High Court emphasized that these services should be outside the mutual dealings for which the association was formed. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the term "performing specific services" means conferring particular benefits on members, and the remuneration must be for services that would not be available to members without specific payment.

Supreme Court Judgment:

The Supreme Court examined each item of income separately:

- Entrance Fees (Rs. 60,750): The Court held that this fee was for the specific service of allowing members to use authorized assistants, which is a tangible benefit not available without payment.

- Subscription Fees (Rs. 15,687): This fee was for the continued benefit of using authorized assistants, proving that members found it worthwhile to pay for this service.

- Fees for Enlisting Companies (Rs. 16,000): This fee was for the specific service of allowing transactions in the shares of newly listed companies, a benefit not available without payment.

The Supreme Court concluded that all three sums were for specific services performed by the association for its members, fulfilling the requirements of section 10(6). The Court also rejected the High Court's view that these services should be outside the mutual dealings of the association, stating that additional services provided for additional payment do not fall within the scope of mutuality.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the three items of income were chargeable to income-tax under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and allowed the appeal with costs. The High Court's decision was reversed, and the Tribunal's view was upheld.

← Previous Next →