1967 (11) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Profit earned by the assessee from the transactions with its shareholders - whether exemt from tax or not

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of advertisement charges received from members under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Deductibility of the entire cost of production of the magazine from advertisement receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Advertisement Charges Received from Members

The primary issue was whether the advertisement charges received by the assessee from its members were liable to tax under section 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee, a mutual association, argued that these charges should not be taxable as income. The Income-tax Officer included these charges in the total income, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal cited section 10(6), which deems a trade, professional, or similar association performing specific services for its members for remuneration to carry on business, making the profits and gains taxable.

The assessee contended that it was a mutual concern run on a no-profit basis, and its activities did not fall under section 10(6). They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., where it was held that the company was not a trade association within the meaning of section 10(6). The revenue did not dispute this but suggested reframing the question to determine the taxability of the advertisement charges received from members.

The court agreed to reframe the question to "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the advertisement charges received by the assessee from its members are liable to tax?" The principle of mutuality was discussed, which posits that a person cannot make a profit out of himself. However, the court noted that mutuality requires an identity between contributors and participators in the fund. The Supreme Court's reversal of the Madras High Court's decision in Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. clarified that all participators must be contributors to the common fund.

Applying this principle, the court found that the assessee-Association was making a profit from some members through advertisement charges, which were not distributed among them as advertisers but went to the general fund. This absence of mutuality made the profit taxable. Thus, the court answered the reframed question in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Deductibility of the Entire Cost of Production of the Magazine

The second issue was whether the entire cost of production of the magazine should be deductible from the advertisement receipts. The revenue had allocated 35% of the total cost as attributable to the advertisement portion, which the assessee contested, claiming the entire cost should be deductible.

The court emphasized that advertisements are sought in a popular magazine, which requires producing the magazine. The journal's production cost is inseparable from the advertisement portion. The court held that the entire cost of producing the magazine should be set off against the advertisement income, as the journal's production was essential for earning advertisement income. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the advertisement charges received from members were taxable, but the entire cost of producing the magazine should be deductible from the advertisement receipts. The judgment resulted in divided success for the parties, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →