1972 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Compensation paid for termination of the services of the managing agents was a payment made with a view to save business expenditure in the relevant accounting year as well as for a few more years. It was not made for acquiring any enduring benefit or income-yielding asset. We agree with the High Court that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the expenditure in question was a revenue expenditure

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 for the termination of managing agency is an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee-company for 1956-57.
2. Whether the expenditure should be considered as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowable Deduction for Termination of Managing Agency:
The primary issue was whether the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 made by the respondent-assessee for the termination of the managing agency is an allowable deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the company's claim that it was a revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal upheld the company's contention, and the High Court affirmed this decision, leading the Commissioner of Income-tax to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Capital Expenditure vs. Revenue Expenditure:
The Supreme Court examined whether the expenditure should be classified as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Act does not define these terms, and the line dividing them is often very thin. The Court noted that numerous decisions, both from Indian courts and courts in England, have attempted to distinguish between the two. Generally, when an expenditure is made to bring into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, it is treated as capital expenditure. However, the Court emphasized that each case must be decided based on its specific facts.

The Court referred to several precedents:
- B. W. Noble Ltd. v. Mitchell: Payment to get rid of a servant when it is not expedient to keep him in the interest of trade was considered a deductible expenditure.
- Anglo-Persian Oil Co. Ltd. v. Dale: Payment to terminate an onerous contract for commission, which was chargeable to revenue account, was considered a revenue expenditure.
- G. Scammell & Nephew Ltd. v. Rowles: Expenditure to terminate a trading relationship to avoid future losses was deemed for the purposes of trade.
- Anglo-Persian Oil Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: Compensation paid to relieve future annual payments of commission was considered revenue expenditure.

The Court found that the termination of the managing agency was done on business considerations and as a matter of commercial expediency. The managing agency became superfluous due to the change in the company's business activity from assembling Austin cars to manufacturing Leyland commercial vehicles. The termination saved the company from unnecessary business expenditure, thereby swelling its profits.

The Court concluded that the compensation paid was a revenue expenditure as it was aimed at saving business expenditure and not for acquiring any enduring benefit or income-yielding asset. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as they were based on business considerations and commercial expediency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision and held that the expenditure in question was a revenue expenditure. The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →