Assessee firm dealing in conch shells claimed deduction of lease money paid for exclusive right to fish for chanks along a coastline as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv). By majority (Kapur and Hidayatullah JJ.), the Supreme Court held it was capital expenditure for an enduring asset, allowing the Commissioner's appeal on rehearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'-
lf/'51
-51s SUPREl\IB COURT REPORTS [l!JG2] SUPP. THE CO:.\HIISSIONER OF INCOi\IE-TAX, MADRAS
v.
IC T .. .ilI. T. l\I. ABDUL KAYOOi\I
(S. K: DAs, J. L. KAPUR and l\I. HrnAYATULLAII, JJ.) , - -- · - Income Tax~Capital Expenditure-Dealer in conch
•hells-Lease money paicifor gatherin~ shells from sea-Nature ojexpenditure-Income·tax Act, 1922(11 of l!J22), s.10 (2)(xy).
_The assessee firm canicd on the business in purchase and sale of conch shells. It obtained a lease for 3 years for gathering specified types of shells from the sea along the coastline abutting on the South Arcot District. It sought to deduct the amount paid as lease money- from its profits from business on the ground that this \vas an expenditure not of a capital nature -but wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. - _ under s. 10(2)(xv) of_ the Income Tax Act.
. II.Zd, (per Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ., Das, J. di'5ent• ing) that the expenditure was capital expenditure and could not be deducted from the profits. The business of the assessce - was buying and selling shells but when it took the lease it · went in for a new speculative business of fishing for shells. The amount paid for reserving the vast coastline for future fishing \Vas not price paid for obtaining the stock in trade i.e. shells with which assessce did his business. The" amount was paid to obtain an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive _right to fish and the payment was not related to the shells.
Mohanlal Hargovind v. Comrni8sioner - oj Income-tax, G. P. & Berar, (194!1) 17 I. T. R. 473(P. C.), distinguished Pringle lndustriea Ltd., Secunderabad v. Commi.s'Jionlr of Income-tax, Hyderabad, [1960] 3 S. C.R. 681, applied.
Per Das J.-The expenditure \vas not capital expenditure and was' deductible from the profits. It was not an ex- - penditure for the acquisition of property or of rights of a . pexmanent character, the possession of \ovhich was ncessary ' for carrying on of the asse.ssee's trade. By this lease the assessee acquired it.s stocks-in-trade rather than a source or endur- ing_ asset_ for producing the stock-in-trade. _ - .lllohalal I!argovind v. Gommi•sioner of Income-tax, G. P. & Berar (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473(P. C.), applied.
· Pringle Industries Ltd., Secunrlerabad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681, distinguished.
C1v:ll. APPELLATE JURISDIOTION: Review Peti· tion No. 16 of 19130.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519
(1) S.C.R.
'
Petition for Review of this court's judgment a.nd order dated April 26, 1960, in Civil Appeal No. 64of1956.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners.
1961 Tht Commis.u'oner of lncomtatox, M odras •• K. T.M.T.1'1. Abdul Kayoom
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri, and P. D. Menon, for respondent.
8.K. Das J,
Now, we have had the advantage of hearing a very full argument with regard to the facts of this appeal, and I for myself have had the further advantage and privilege of reading the judgment which my learned brother Hidayatullah, J., is proposing to deliver in this appeal. I have very carefully considered the question again with reference to the facts relating thereto and, much to my regret, have come to the conclusion that I must adhere to the opinion which I expressed earlier. My view is that the facts of this case a.re indistinguishable from the facts on which the decision of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Horgovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and Berar (') was rendered, and on the principles laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Go., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal ('), it must be held that the expenditure of Rs. 6111/in this case was on reYenue account and the respondent firm was entitled to the allowance which it claimed.
(1) (1960] 3 S.C.R, 681. () (1949) 17 I.T.R. 473 (P.C.), (3) (1956) 1 S.C,R. 972,
1
l I
520 SUPREME , COURT REPORTS (19G2] SUPP.
1901
1901 The short facts are these. The respondent Tlie Commissioner of firm carried on a hnssinoss in the purchase and lne~ltVC, v. Madras sale of couch shells (called chanks). It used to K.T.M.T.JI. acquire the stock of lJonch shells {I) by .,purchase
A•iul Kayaom from diver•, (2) by purchase from tlie Fisheries S. X. D11sJ, Department of the Government of Madras, ·and (3) by fishing fur antl g»thering such shells from tho sea. It dispo3cd of tho stock so acquired at. Calcutta, the difference bet.ween the cost price and selling price less expenses being its profit made in. business. On November 9, 1945 it took on lease from tho Director of Industries·. and · Commere, Madras, tho exclusive right, liberty and authority to fish for, take and carry away "chank" shells in the sea off the coa9t line of tho South Arcot District including the French Kuppania of .Pondicherry. Tho boundary of the area within which the ·'right could ho exercised waf! ,given in a schedule to the lease. The lease wtis -for a period of three years from July' I, 1944 to June 30, lfl47 on a consideration of an yearly i:ent of Rs. 6111/· to be paid in advance. Clause 3 of ._the lease contained the material terms thereof anil may be set out in full.
"
"3. The lessor hereby convenants-' with the lesson as follows :- ' ~
• {i) To pay the rent on the day a."Ua- - in manner aforesaid .
. ' '\il.l To 'deliv;er to the Assistant Director of Pearl arid Chank Fisheries, ,Tticon all· Velampuri" shells that may be obtaincq. 'by the lessee upon payment of their value' as determined by the Assistant Director.
{iii) To collect chanks c;aught in nets and by means of-diving as well. In the process of sucli collectio~ of shells not to. fish c):J.ank shells less than 2t inches in diameter and if any chank shells leRB than 21 inches ill
rl
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS fi21
diameter be hrouht inadvertently to shore, to return at once alive to t.he ~ea all such undt>rsized shells.
(iv) Not at any time hereafter to transfer or underlet or part with posse· ssion of this grant or the rights and pr i vile~es hereby granted or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor.
1961
The CommiSJiontr of lncome•IAX Madras •• K.T.M.T.M. Aldul Kayoom
S. K. Das J,
(v) At the encl or sooner determination of the term hereby created peaceably aml quietly to yield to the lesson the rights ftn<:l privileges hereby granted, and
(vi) To report to the Assistant Director of Pearl and Chank Fisheries (South), Tuticorn the actual number of shells kept unsold in different stations after the expiry of the lease period.
For the assessment year 1946-47, the respondent firm submitted a return of its income to the Incometax Officer, Karaikudi Circle, showing its income from sale of ch inks purch'lscd from divers at Rs. 7191/by sale of chanks purchased from Government Department at Rs. 23, 588/· and Rs. 2819/- by aalo of chanks gathered by themselves (through divers) after deducting Rs. 6111/- being the rent paid to Government under the contract referred to abov,J. It sought to deduct Rs. 6111/from its profits from business on the ground that this was an expenditure not of a capital nature but wholy and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business under s. I0{2)(xv) of the Income-'tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal by the :Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal to the Appella,te Trib~nal the respondent firm conteqded that the
5!12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1!162] SUPP.
1961 decison of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Hargovind Tit. Comminioner of v. Commissioner of Jncome.taz(')applied to this case l"'om1-tox, v. MoJrOJ inasmuch as the payment was to secure tho stock- K. T. M. T.M. in-trade for its busim-ss. Tho Appellate Tribunal Abdul Kayoom was of the opinion that the Privy Council S. K. D.,J, decision covered the case, but felt itself bound by the decision of tho Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K. '!'. M. 'l'. M. Abdul Kayum Hussain Su.hib v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1 ). The Tribunal acceded to tho demand for a reference to the High Court, and accordingly referred the following question to the High Court for it.s decision.
Tit. Comminioner of l"'om1-tox, MoJrOJ
"Whether on the facts and circ::mMtances of the case the payment of the sum of Rs. GI 11 /- made by the assessee under tho terms of the agreement entered into with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras on 9th November, 1945 was not an item of revenue cxp<>nditure incurred in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee and, therefore, allowable under the provisions of section I 0 of the Indian Income· tax Act?"
The reference first came before a Division Bench and was then referred to a J<'ull Bench. By its judgment dated April 2, 1953 .the Full Bench answered the question in favour of the respondent firm. On a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court tho Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, brought the present appeal to this Court.
In A,.am Bengal Cement Co., Ltd. v. The Com- misioner of lncome-m ('I, this Court referred to the decision in Benarlli.das Jagannath. In re.(') and accepwd the following broad principles for the purpose of discriminating between a capital and a revenue expenditure.
(II (19'9) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P.C.I (li (19Hl I. T. R. 652. (31 [1955] I S. C. R, 972. (4) (19461 15 I. T. R. 185.
(I} S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 52:i
(I) The outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial replacement of equipment (See Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Granite City Steamship Company Ltd.(')]. Such expenditure is regarded as on capital account, for it is incurred not in earning profits but in setting the profit-earning machinery in motion. In my opinion this test does not apply in the present case where no profit-earning machinery was set in motion.
1961
The Commissioner of lncome-iax, Madtas •• K. T. M. T. M, Abdul Kay(;om
S. K. DasJ,
(2) Expenditure may be treated as propel'!y attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing in•o existence an asset or an advant<>ge for the enduring benefit of a trade. (See Atherton v. British lnsu/,ated and H elsby Cables Ltd. ( ')). In elucidation of this principle it has been laid down in several decisions that by "enduring" is meant "enduring in the way that fued cal'ital endures" and it does not connote a benefit t'hat 1 ndures in the sense that for a good number of years it relieves the assessee of a revenue payment. In Robert Addie & Sons Collieries Ltd. v. Comminioners of Jnl,a,nd Revenue ('} Lord Clyde formulated the same test in these words:
"What is 'money wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade' in a question which must be determined upon the principles of ordinary commercial trading. It is necessary accordingly to attend to the true nature of the expenditure, and to ask one's self the question, is it a part of the Company's working expenses?-is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit-earning?-or, on the other hand, is it a capital outlay?-is it expenditure necessary for the acquisition of property or of rights of a permanent character, (l) (1927) 13 T. C. l, 14. (2) (1925) 10 T. C. 155,
(3) (l92f) 6 T. C. 671, 676.
524" SUPltEME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
1961
the possession of which is a condition of carrying on its trade at all?''
Tiu CommUsion1r of Income-tax, Madras v. K.T.M.T.M. .Abdul Kayoom
This test was advo,.rted to by the Privy Council in Tata Hydro-Ekctric A!(ilncies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax('). In my opinion the application of this te'Bt makes it at one; clear that the sum ofRs.6111/which "tho respondent firm' spent was expenditure laid out· as part.of. the process of profit-earning;_ it was not a capital outlay, tliat is, expenditure nec;:essary for the acquisition of property or of rights of a permanent character, the possession of whiol:i was a condition of carrying on its, trade. Under the contract in question the ,respondc•rit firm did not acquire any right" to, immpvablc P.roperty. It acquired no right in t.he bed .of' the sea or in the sea. The. only right conferred on the respondent firm was the right to fi'sh for,. gat-her and carry away conch ·shel1" (in motion under tho surfacQ of the sea) 01' a specified type and size. The respondent firm wa.s under an ·'"obligation to return to the sea conch shells less than 21 in.ch es · in diameter. The busines~ of the respondent firm consisted in buying and selling conch shells. No m,l}nufacturing process was involved in it. Therefore, tho stock-in-trade of the respondent firm :as conch shells. It scour: ed this stock-in-trade in many different ways, by purchase from divers, by purchase from Government and private parties; and also by gathering conch shells under the contract in question. In my _ opinion 1 the contract into wich the respondent firm ente!'ed was merely for securing its stock-intra.de. It is indeed true that.im considering whether a.n item of expenditure is of a capital or a revenue nature,_9ne must .consider- the ·nature of the concern, the ordinary course of business· usually adopted in that· concern, and the object with which the -expJnse is ipcurred. The. true nature of the tra.nsactfon must be cpllectcd from the entire ( 1) (1937) 5 I. T. R. 202,
S. K. DasJ.
525
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
IHI
document with reference to all the relevant facts and circumstances. Having regard to the nature of the respondent firm's business and the course adopted by it for carrying it on, it appears to me to be rather far-fetched to hold that by the contract in question the respondent firm acquired property or right of a rermanent character, the possession of which was a condition of carrying on its trade. To me it seems that the better view, in a busini·ss sense, is that the respondent firm merely acquired by means of the contract its stock-in-trade, rather than a source or enduring asset for producing the stock-in-trade.
Thi Commi'asiorur of /neomc•te:x Madra1 v. X.TM.T.M. AtdvlXo.-
S.". DosJ.
It was argued before us, as it was argued in the High Court, that what was acquired in the present case was the means of obtaining the stockin-trade for the business rather than the stock-intra.de itself. I am unable to accept this argument as correct. The contract entered into by the respondent firm was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of obtaining conch shells, which were its stock-in-trade. As I havo stated earlier, the contract granted no interest in the sea, sea bed, or sea water etc. It was simply a contract giving the grantee the right to pick and carry away conch shells of a specified type and size which of course implied the right to appropriate them as its own property. In my opinion, in a case of this nature no distinction can bf. drawn in a. business sense between the right of picking and ca,rrying away conch shells and the actual buying of them. It is not unusual for businessmen to secure, by means of a contract, a supply of raw materials or of goods which form their stock-intrade, extending over several years for the payment of a lump sum down. Even if the conch shells were stored in a godown and the respondent firm was given a riirht to go and fetch them and so reduce them into its ownership, it could scarcely have been
I
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. w11 suggested that the price paid was capital expendi- T;,, l'Jommi.<'i°'" of ture. I may ex11lain what I have in mind by giving Inw•e-t« .lfadra; a simple illustration. · Take the case of a fisher may K. T.ii-r.M. who sells fish. Fish is his stock-in-trade. He man Abdul Kayoom . __ buy the fish he requires from other persons; or he _sx. DasJ._ · : may obt3in the supply of fish he requires by catch. ing. the fish of a specified size and type in particular water over a short period under a contract entered into by him and take them away. I do not think that in a business sense any distinction can be made between the two means of ·obtaining the stook-intrade. Both really amount to securing the stock. in·trad~ rather than acquiring an.enduring asset or . a permanent right for producing the stock·in-trade. And a business man, like . the fisher man in the illustration given above, would indeed be surprieed to learn that. buying of fish for his business is revenue expenditure whereas catching fiish in particular water under a contract entered into by him for the purpose of obtaining his stock-in-trade on payment of a lump sum down, is capital expenditure.
(3) The test whether for the purpose of the expenditure any capital was withdrawn,· or, in other words; whether the object of incurring the expenditure was to employ what was taken in as capital of the business does not arise in the present case and need not be considered.
, No different principles wre laid down by my learned brethren in their decision in Pringle Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(') and so far a> that cse is concerned, their decision must · hold the field. The difficulty and difference of opinion that arise now relate to the application of those principles to the facts of the '}Jresent case:
One is reminded in this case of what Lord Macmillan said in Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(') at page 209: (ll [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681. (2) [1937] 5 I.T.R. 202.
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 527
"Their Lordships recognise and the decided cases show how difficult it is to discriminate between expenditure which is and expenditure which is not, incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains."
Lord Greene (Master of the Rolls) expressed himself more strongly and adverting to the distinction between capital and income, said:
;961
Tiu Cammisllioner of /1uome-tax, .ltadras v.
/(. T. ii-t. T. Al. Abdul Kayoom
S. K. Das J.
"There have been many c1tses where this matter of capital or income has been debated. There have been many cases which fall upon the borderline: indeed, in many cases it is aimost true to say that the spin of a coin would decide the matter almost as satisfactorily as an attempt to find reasons."
[Vi(ie Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. British Salmson Aero Engines Ltd.I•)].
Perhaps, the case before us is not as bad as the cases whroh the Master of the Rolls had in mind when he made the above observations. It is, however, a truism that each case must_ turn upon its own facts. Nevertheless the decisions are useful as illustrations of some relevant general principles. The nearest illustration that we can get is the decision of the Privy Council in JllolUJnlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax('). That decision was binding on the Indian Courts at the time when it was given and as I think that it is still good law and is indistinguishable from the present case, I offer no apology for referring to it in great detail. The facts of that case were these. The assessees there carried on a business at S)Veral places as manufacturers and vendors · of country-made cigarettes known as bidis. These cigarettes were composed of tobacco rolled in leaves of a tree known as tendu leaves, which were obtained by the assessees by entering ihto a number of (I) (1938) 221'. C. 29, 43. (2) 1194~!.)7 I. T. R. 473 (P .. C,).
528 SUPREME OOURT REPORTs [l!J62) SUPP.
1061
Th• C<lmrnissionv oj f1te01QC-iax, MQtltas
•.
K. T.M. T.M. A !du/ K ayoom
S. K. Da1J.
short term contracts with the Goveruml'nt an<l other owners of forests. Under the cnl! tracts, in consideration of a certain sum payable by i11staJ. ments, the. a8sessees were granted the exclusive right to pick and carry away the tendu leaves from the fo1 est area described. Tho asseseee were allowed to coppice small tendu plant11 a few months in advance to obtain good leaves and to polls.rd tendu trees a few months in advance to obtain better and bigger leaves. The picking of tho leaves however had to start at once or practically at once and to proceed continuously. On these essential facts, the Privy Council held that the contracts were entered into by the assessees wholly and exclusively for the purpose of supplying themselves with one of the raw mat.-rials of their busineee, that they granted no interest in land, or in the trees or plants, that under them it was tho tendu ll'aves and nothing hut tho tendu loaves that were acquired, that the right to piCk the leaves or to go on to the land for the purpose was merely ancillary to the real purpose of the contracts and if. not exprt>sscd would bo implied by law in the sail' of a growing crop, and that therefore the expenditure incurred in acquiring the raw material was in a business sense an expenditure on revenue account and not on capital, just as much ae if the tendu le:wes had been b•Jught in a shop. I can find no distinction which would make any difference between the facts of that case and the facts of the 1iresent case. Let me compare the essential facts of these two cases and see whether there is any difference.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
5211
(1) S.C.R.
In the case under our consideration the period of the contract is three years. Indeed, there is no vital difference between the periods in the two cases.
( 2) In the case before us the contract area is described in a schedule. In the two contracts which were under consideration by the Privy Council the f.Ontra.ct area was also indicated in a schedule. The ; boundaries of the forests in which tendu leaves · could be plucked were delimited by the schedule. Same is the case with the contra.ct before us. The contract area in which conch shells of a specified type and size can be picked and gathered is described in a schedule. Such description does not mean that the assessee gets any right other than the right to gather conch shells. In the Privy Council case the assessees were granted no interest in land or in the· trees or plants; it was the tendu leaves and nothing but the tendu leaves that were acquired. In the case before us no interest was given in the sea bed or in the sea water or in any of the products thereof. Con ch shells of a specified type and size and nothing hut such conch shells were acquired by the contra.ct. I do not think that the reference to the coast line off the· South Arcot District makes any difference between the present case and the case on which the decision in M oha:nlal, Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax (')was rendered. If in the matter of plucking of te:ndu leaves the expenditure under the contract was, in a business sense, expenditure on revenue account, I fa.ii to see why a similar expenditure for gathering conch shells in motion under the surface of the sea near the coast line should not, in a business sense, be considered as expenditure on revenue account. This aspect of the case was emphasised by their Lordships in the following para.graph:
1911
Tlte CommissfMJW •I lncom1·tax, M4rlrt1. s v. K.T.M. T.M. .A.;1u1 Ka,..,,,_
· S. K. n.;J.
(I) (1949) 17LT.R.473(P. C.).
\
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
T ltt C0111mission" of Income-ta, Maritas
••
Ir. T, 11. T, M, Ab~l llayoom .•, K. D., J,
"It appears to their Lordships that there • has been some misapprehension as to the true nature of these agreements and they wish to state at L'ncc what in their opinion is and what i8 not the effect of them. They are merely examples of many similar contracts entered into by the appellants w},Jolly and exclusively for the purpose of their business, that purpose being to supply themselves with one of the raw materials of that business. The contracts grant no interest in land and no interest in the tree~; or plants themselves. They are simply an<l solely contracts giving to the grantees the right to pick and carry away leaves, which of course, implies the right to a appropriate them M their own property."
In the 04oe under our consideration the only right granted to the respondent firm was to take and carry away conch shells of a specified type and Hize, which of course, implies the right to appropriate them as the respondent firm's own property. The right to go into the sea and cast nets etc. was merely ancillary to the real purpose of the contract.
Nor do I think that the circumstance that the contracts conferred an exclusive privilege or right is a matter of any significance. In M ohanlal llargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax (') the contracts were exclusive and their Lordships s~tcd:
"It is true that the rights under the contracts are exclusive but in such a case as this that is a matter whieh appears to their Lordships to be of no significan<',e.
These observations are as apt in their application to the present case as they were in the case before their Lordships of the Privy Council.
(3) The Privy Council draw a distinction between cases relating to the purchase or leasing of
(I) (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P. C.).
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
531
-
mines, quarries, deposits of brick earth, land with standing timber etc. On one side and the case under its consideration on the other. It referred to the decision in Alianza Go. v. Bell(') and said:
""·the present case resembles much more closely the case described and distinguished by Channell, J. at page 673 of the re-port in Alianza Co. v. Bell of the cost of material worked up in a manufactory. That side the learned Judge, is a current expenditure and does not become 'a capital expenditure merely because the material is provided by something like a forward contract, under which a person for the payment of a lump sum down secures a supply of the raw material for a period extending over sever'll years'.''
1961
Tht Commiuian11 of Income-fox, Madras v. K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom
S. K. DasJ.
In.Kaur£ Timber Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes(') the company's business consisted in cutting and disposing of timber. It acquired in som.e cases timber bearing lands, in other cases it purchased the standing timber. The leases we1e for 99 years. So far as the cases where the land was acquired were concerned there could have been no doubt that the expenditure made in acquiring it was capital expenditure. In the case of the purchase of the standing timber what was acquired was an interest in land. The purcha.sers bought the trees which they could allow to remain standing as long as they liked. It was pointed out that so long as the timber at the option of the company remained upon the soil, it derived its s:istenance and nutriment from it. The additional growths became ipso jure the property of the company. In these circumstances it was held that the expenditure was capital expenditure. In the case before us some reliance was placed by the appellant on the term that shells less than 2t inches in diameter brought inadvertently to shore had to be returned at once alive to the sea.
(1) [1904) 2 K. B. 666 (affirmed on appeal in [1905] 1 K. B. 184and [906] A. C. 18.) (2) [1913] A. C. 771.
532 SUPI~EME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
1961
1961 The argument was that such, shells might ·later grow '1 h1 Commissioner of in size by recei "ing sustenance and nutriment from Incom1•tax, v. Mad1os sea water and could be later gathered by the res· K.T.M.T.M. pondent firm when they reached the size of 2t
Aitlrd Kayoom inches in diameter or more. This, it was argued, S. K. DosJ. brought the present case nea.rer' the decision in Kauri Timber case (1 ). I am unable to agree. It is to be remembered that live shells move under I.he surface 7f the sea. and they do not ramain at the same plce; as trees do. A shell less than 2 inches ih dig.meter returned a.live to the sea may move away from the contra.at area and may never be gathered by the 'respondent firm. In these circumstances tho· a.p-pellant is not entitlecl ,to ca.II to his aid the test of "further vegetation" or "sustenance and nutriment" referred to in the Kauri Timber case (1). , '
From. whatever point of view we may !oak at the case, it seems to me that the facts of the pnsent case a.re indistiriguisble from those o the case in 1l:fohanlal llargovind ,., Gommiisioner of Inc.orne-tax{') In Mohanlal Harg1n1ind's case(') the right was to pluck tendw leave~; in our case the right is/ to gather conch shells of·specified type and size. This distinction, it is obvious, makes no difference. Irr the High Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that Mohanlal Hm·govind's case(') related to the. acquisition of ·raw materials whereas the present case relates to the acquisition of "chanks" by a dealer who sells thenr without subjecting them to· any manufacturing process, aria this-distinction, it was contended, made the decision in Mohanlal Hurgovind's case (') inapplicable to the present case . . The High Court rejected this contention and in my opinion rightly. I agree with the High Court -that on principle and in a business sense, there is no distinction between acquiring raw materials for a manufacturing busim·ss~nd [Lcquiring or purchasing goods by it dealer for the ·purpose of sale, particularly when there ii; no question of any excavation (1) [1913) A. C. 771. (2) (1949) 17 I.T.R. 473 (P.C.).
•
'
( 1) S.C .. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 533
etc .. in order to win the g.Jod8 and make su.,h goo.Is parts of the stock-in-trade, a point which weighed with the Court of Appeal in .'!iow B1irdulph Gravel (1 0. Lf.l. v. Poole(') and with my leame<I brethren 1 1 Pingle lndmtries Ltd. v. Oon1missi"nr1 r of lnr.mne'.ax ('}. No such point is priwnl in this case. I have been unable to find any other distinction between the two cases which w(l\t!d make a difference in the application of the principles for discriminating between capital expe11rliture and revenue t>xpenditure.
1961
The CommissiQRIT Pf Income-tax, 14 adras •• K T.M. TM. Abiul Kayoom
To adopt again the language of Lord Green, I see no ground in principle or reason for differf'ntiating the present case from the case in Mohanlal H11rgovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax ('}.
On behalf of the respondent firm a further question was agita.ted. namely, whether an allowance for the cost of gathering the conch shdls by nets etc., should not be given, even though the rent paid under the contract was not allowable, under s. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act and a reference was made in th is connection to the decision in Hood Barrs v. Commissioners of Inland Re·i•enue ('). I do not think that we are concemed with that matter in the present appeal. The only question which arisAs for decision is the one referred to the High Court. I have held that the High Court correctly answered the question which related to the payment of the sum of Rs. 61 ll/- only. The question having been correctly answered by the High Court, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with cost.
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-TJ?is appeal was heard with Pingle Industries, Ltd., Sccunderabad v. The Commissioner of Income-tax ('), in which judgment wa.s delivered by us on April W l 960. In accordance with the decision in Pingh Industries case (1 ),
Hidayatu/lah .J,
(I\ [1954) 35 T. a. 459. (2\ [i960J s s. a. R. 681. (3) (1949) 17 1.T.R. 473 (P.C) (4) 195137 T.C. 188. '.5\ [19601 3 S. C.R. 681.
1
!i34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
/Ml
Tit, Co·11r'fliJJio1 ;tf of !11conu-1~x • • \ladrtu v. A·. TM. T. M. Ah1i11I 1i·,1_room
this appeal was allowed. Ll\ter, a review potition (No. 16 of l!l60) was filt>d on the ground that this appeal was not governed hy the rlecision in Pingle h1,-/u.,fri1~' mse (1 ), an<l that as it was not fully argued, it 5ho11ld he rnh<·•ir<l. It is um;ec<·B!'ary to go into the rcason8 why the rehearing was granted, except to say that there was perhaps a mis11ndcrRtanding about t.he concessions made by counsel. We were, thereforP, satisfied that we should grant tho r"hcaring. and have since heard full arguments in this appeal.
K. T. M. T. !If. Abdul Kayoom and Hussain Sahib {respon<ll'nt) is 1i regi><trrPd firm, and r.arrks on business in conch shells lncallv known as ''c·hanks", which are found on the bed 'of the sea all along the coast-line abutting on the South Arcot DiBtrict. The rcspon<lcnt took on lease from the Director of Ill'lustries an<! CommP.rce, Madras "the rxduaivl' right, liberty and authority to take and carry away all chanks found in tho sea"' for a period of three years ending on Junu 30, 1947 .. The consideration was Hs. 6, 111/- per y(·ar payable in advance. Fur the year of assessment, l!l464 7 (the ye!!" of account ending .Tune 30, 1945) the respondent in showing its profits from business sought to deduct Rs. fi, 111 /- on the ground that this was a.n expenditure not of a capita 1 nature but wholly and exclusiv<>ly laid out for the purpose of business . under a. 10 (2) (XV) of the Income-tax Act. This claim was disallowed by tho Income-tax Officer, and on appeal, by the Appellate Assistant CommisRioner. On further appeal tu the Appellate Tribunal, the r<.'spondent contended that tho mling of tho Privy Counril in .MolVJ11/al llaraovind'.s case (') applie<l to the <'ase, inasmuch as the payment was to s"curo the btock-in·trade for its businl'BS. The Appellate Tribunal, though it was of opinion that the Privy Council rase applied, felt itself bound by the •.>arlicr Full Bench d"cision of the Madras High 111fl960i3 S. C.R. 681. t71(1949)171. T. R. 473 IP. C.i.
535
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Court in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom Hu8sain Sahib v. Oommis8ioner of Income-tax, 11fadras (') relating to thi3 respondent, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal, however, acceded to a demand for a case, and referred the following question to the High Court for its decision :
lllfll
The Commissioner 'J lncotnrtox, M•tirt1s v. K. T.M. T. M. Abdul /(ayoom
Hidqyatu//ah J.
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the payment of the sum of Rs. 6,111/- made by the assessee under the terms of the agreement entered into with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras; on 9th November 1945 was not an item of revenue expenditure incurred in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee and, "therefore, allowable under the provisions of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act".
The reference went before a Divisional Bench, which referred the case for decision of a Full Bench. The Full Bench held that the case was covered by the Privy Council case above referred to, observing:
"In our opinion, the facts in the case before the Judicial Committee are indistinguishable from the facts of the present case. In one case, the leaves had to be picked from trees by going upon the land, while in the other case the chanks had to be collected and gathered by diving into the sea. It is impossible to construe the documents in the present case as conferring any interest in t.hat portion of the sea from which the exclusive right of winning the chanks was conferred upon the asses see."
The High Court also did not see any difference between raw materials acquired for a manufacturing business and the acquisition of chanks in the present case, and held that the chanks were acquired as the stock-in-trade of the respondent and the transaction was tantamount to purchase of goode.
(ll (1939) 1.T.R. 652.
•
1
536 SUPREME COUltT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
If/el
T., CttmlCissiotUT of /11(ttrM·Wt, JI Uras K. T. II. '· T.M. JUlll K•YI""
liii•1.iull•• J.
The High Court, however, certifierl the case as fit for appeal, and the Commiasioner of Income-tax hM filed thia appeal.
The material terms of the agreement in the case are as follows :
"!. The lessor hereby grants unto the lessees the full free and exclusive right, liberty and authority to fish or take and carry away all chank shells in the sea off the coast line of the South Arcot District including the French Kuppams of Pondicherry more particularlv described in tl1'i schedule hereto to hold "the premises to the lessees from the first day of July 1944 for a period of three years ending 30th June 1947 paying therefor the yearly rent of Rs. 6, 111 (rupees six thousand one hundred and eleven only) to be paid yearly in advance, the first payment to be made within fifteen days from the date of intimation of acceptance and the second and third payment~ to be made on or before the 15th June 1:?45 and 19·16, respectively at the Government Treasury at Tuticor-in or Madras.
"
x x x
x x x
(ii) To deliver to the Assistant Director of Pearl and Chank l<'ishcries, Tuticorin all Velampuri shells that may be obtained by the le&1ces upon payment of their value as determined by the Aseistant Director.
(iii) To collect Chan ks in nets and by means of diving as well. In the process of such collection of shell not to fish chank shells less than 2! inches in diamel<'r if any r.hank shells leis than 2t inches in diameter
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 537
be brought inadvertently to shore, to return at once alive to the sea all such undersized shells.
(iv) Not at any time hereafter to transfer or underlet or part with possession of tbis grant or the rights and privileges hereby granted or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor.
1961
TIM Commissioner of lncome·tax MJ•as v. K T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom
Hidayatullah J,
x x x
(vi) To report to the A1sistant Director of Pearl and Chank Fisheries (South), Tuticorin the actual number of shells kept unsold in · different stations after the expiry of the lease period."
An analysis of the agreement shows that the respondent obtained an exclusive right to fish for "chanks" by the method of diving and nets and to appropriate them except those below 2 inches in diameter, which had to be returned alive to the sea and Velampuri shells which had to be sold compulsorily to Government. The respondent had also to report to its lessors at the end of the term, the numher of shells not sold. The right was exclusive, but was -not capable of being transferred or underlet, and it was for a fairly long period. The coast line involved was also fairly long.
There is no doubt that the payment of Rs. 6,l ll/· was an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of selling shells, just as the payment to the divers and other sundry expenses were. But an expenditure for the purpose of the business may be of a capital nature, and if it is so, it cannot be claimed as a deduction. The question is whether this payment was of a capital nature.
What is attributable to capital and what, to revenue has led to a long strin~ of eases Ii.ere aqq
,
~,
53~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
1961 in the English Courts. The decisions of this Court Th. C.-missiontr of reported in Assam Bengal Cement Go., Ltd, v. Com- Irtctm1-tax, Madras missioner of Income-tax(1 ) and Pingle Industries v. K.T.M. T. M. case (i) have consillered all the leading cases, and
Abdul Koyoom havo also indicated the tests, which are usually Hidayalul/ah J. applied in such casrs. It is not necessary for us to cover the same ground again. Further, none of the tests is either exhaustive or universal. Each case depends on its own facts, and a close similarity between one case and ,another is not enough, bAcause even a single significant deta.il may alter the entire aspect. In deciding surh casrs, one sh'mld avoid the• temptation to dPcide r,ases (as sa'd by Cordozo* by matchirg the colour of one case against the colour of JJ,n(>ther. To decide, therefore, on which 'side .of th() line a case falls, its broad resemblanc~ to· another case is not at all decisive. What is decisive \s~the nature of the business, the nature of the expenditure, the nature of the right acquired, and their relation inter se, and this is the only key to rcsol vc the issue in the light of the general principles, which are followed in such cases.
A trader may spend money to acquire his raw materials, or his stock-in-trade, and the payment may .often be on revenue account but· not necessarily. A person selling goods by retail may be said to be acquiring his stock-in-trade when he buys snch goods from a wholesaler. But the same <!annot be said of another retailer who buys a monopoly right over a long period rom a producer of those goods. ·The· amount, he pays to secure the monopoly, through a part of the expenditure to secure his stock-in-trade is not of the" same character as t.he price he pays in the first 'illustration. By that payment, he secures an enduring advantage and an asset which is a capital-asset of his business. In the same w11y, if a manufacturer buy his raw materials he rilakes a revenue expenditure, but when he acquires· a source fr0m :which he would derive his (I) (1955) 271.T,R. 34. (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 681.
(1} S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 5!l9
raw materials for thL' <'nduring benefit, of his business, he spenrlR on th•' capital side. Thus, a manufacturer of woll<'n gnods who buys his wool buys his raw m11teri11ls, but when be buys a sheep farm, he buys a c ipital asset.. There is then no difference between purchase of a factory and the purchase of the sheep farm, because both are c.'tpital asset of enduring nature.
1961
The Commissfoiur oj Income-tax, Madras •• K. T. M. T. M. Abdul h'ayoom lliday11f11llah J.
The respondent in this ease has tried to distinguish Pingle lnd·ustries case (1 } and to bring its case within the ruling of the Privy Council in Molwnl<il liargovind'" wse ('). When the former case wa3 argued, the attemot was to bring it also within the mle of the Privy Council, but now, the differences between the two cases are recognised and Pingle lnd'll.strics case (1 ) is said to b3 entirely different. In deciding the present appeal, it is hardly necessary to do more th•tn analyse once again the facts and drcnmstances of these two cases to show why those two cases were differently decided, and the present case will then be easily disposed of, not on its similarity to another hut on its own facts. We shall begin with the Privy Council.
(
Mohanlal Hargovind and Co., was a firm of bidi manufacturers, which needs tendu leaves in which tobacco is wrapped to make bidis. Tendu leaves were thus the raw material of the·business. Tendu leaves can be bought from dealers who sell tendu leaves in a large way. Now, what dirl the firm do ? It took leaves of forests with a right to pick the leaves. This right carried with it the right to coppice small tendu plants and to pollard the tendu trees. There was, however, no right in the trees or the land and the right to go over the land was merely ancilhry. Looked at from the point of view of business, there was no more than a purchase of the leaves, and the leaves were needed as raw materials of the business. In deciding the ease, the Judicial Committee discounted the right to (I )[1960] 3 S, C.R. 681. (2) (1949) 17 I. T. R. 473 (P.C.).
,
I ti
540 SUPREME QOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
1961
The Wotruniuiondr nf Incomt·l<V. 1 Marlrfl:. v. K.1'. M. T.M Ah du/ K a)'oont lfidr1yatullrih J.
coppice small tendu plants and to pollard the tendu trees as a very insignificant right of cultivation necessary to improve' the qua.lity of the leaves, but .whinh right ranked no higher than the right to spray a fruit tree. The right of entry upon the hnd wa8 also considered ancillary to the Ip.ain purpose of the contract, which was acquisition of !Pndu leaves and tendu leaves alone, and it was observed that even if this right of going on the laud and plucking the leaves was not expressed in the cbntra.ct, it would have been implied by law. Their Lordships then observed that the High Court ti iverted its vie ;v from these points, and ·attached toq much importance to -cases decided. upon quite different facts. They then observed that "oases relating to tho purchase or leasing of mines, quarries, deposits of brick earth, land with standing timber ........ .'' wer!l of no assistance, and concluded:
"If the tendu leaves had been stored in a merchant's godown and the appellants had bought the right to go amcl fetch them and so reduce them into' their possession -anct - ownership it could scarcely have been suggested that the purchase price was capital expencliture. Th9ir •Lordships see no ground in pr-inciple or reason for differentiating the present case from that supposed." (p. 478)
That case thus involved no right in land or trees; the licence to be on the land was merely an accessory right; the right of cultivation was insignificant. .{rhe term was short, and the collection of leaves was seasonal. Leaves once collected, the operation pro tempore was over till the fresh crop came. There was thus no acquisition of an e'nquring asset in the way capipal endures; it was more a purchase of crops of two or three successive years shewereQ_ on an agreement to en~re the upply !lf rw l!laterials,
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 541
Contrast this with the facts of Pingle Industries case (1 ). The business of the assessee there, was selling stone slabs called flag stones. These stones were first won from the quarries and then dressed and shaped and then sold. Now, \<hat did the assessee do ? It took leases of stone quarries in a large number of villages for twelve years. PJ;ima!'.ily, this was done to obtain ston~s for its bJlsiness. It could have been a contract by which it would have been entitled to so many cubic feet of stones to be extracted in a particular period. It took long-term leases of vast :ireas in several villages to ensure supplies for a considerable time. The leases were not limited by quantity, nor did they refer to any stones in particular. It could take all or it could take none; but it could not have carried away all the stones, if the eupply outran its efforts. The stones were embedded in earth, layer upon layer, and had to be systematically extracted. Till the stones at the top were removed, it could not remov£ those at the bottom, and there were still more layers further below. In these circumstances, no specific quantity having been bought or sold either expressly or impliedly, the stones being immovable property or a pa.rt thereof and the contra.ct being long-te1m contracts, Mohanlal Hargovind's case (') was held inapplicable, and it was held that the assessee in Pingle Industries case (1) had acquired an enduring a.sset and the expenditure was on capital account.
1961
The Commissionlr of lncome·lax, A-1.adii'i' Y. K.T.M. T.M. Abdul Kayoom H id•yalullah J.
These cases between them show adequately the dividing line, which exists between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. To determine on which side of the line the particular expenditure falls, one ma.y often put himself the question posed by Lord Clyde in Robert Addie an& Sons Collieries JM. v. CommiBsioners Inland Revenue').
(1) [1960) 3 s. a. R. 681. (2) [1949) 17 r. T. R. 473 (P.C.). (3) [1921] 8 T. C. 671, 676.
t
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!l62] SUPP.
1961
71u Com·ni·sumtr uj /ncom-lax, ,\ft1drar •• K. TM. T.M. Abdul Koyoom Hidaya11.illah J.
"Is it part of the Company's working expen· scs, is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit earning ?-or, on the other band, is it capital outlay, is it expenrliture necc,sary for the acquisition of property or of rights of a permanent character, the possession of which is a. condition of carrying on its trade at all?"
The i;ame question was again poS<'d by the Judicial Committee in Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies, Ltd. v. Commisswner of lnc.omP·fax ('). The answer to this question in each of the two case of 1WoharUal Hargom"nd (') and Pingle lnd11slrie.~ (') is entirely different. The difference c.an lie noticed easily, if we were t-0 read here what Channell, J. Ra.id in Alianza Co. Ltd. v. Bell(') :
"In the ordinary case, the cost of the material worked up in a ma.nufactory i~ not a. capital expenditure, it is a current expenditure and does not become a capital expenditure mncly l.Joca.usc the mat~rial is provided Ly something like a. forward contract, under whieh a person for the payment of a lump sum secures a supply of the raw material for a period cxwnding over several yeara ...... Jf it is merdy a manu· facturing husi1wss, then t.hc procuring of the raw material would not be a capital expenditure. But if it is like the working of a par. ticular mine, or bed of brick earth and eonvcrting the stuff into a mnrketal.Jlc commodity, thon, the money paid for the prim<: cost of the stuff so dealt with is just as mucl) capital a< the money sunk in machinery or buildings." The first. part of the observation is applicable to M ohanla/, fl argovind'8 case (') and the latter part, to Pingle Indu.~trie.• case (3 ). What is said of a manufoc. turing concern is equally applicable to a non. manufacturing business. It is the quality of the payment ta.ken with what is obtained, t.hat is decisive of the character of the paymt-nt. (I) (!~137) !.. R. _<A_ I. A. ll5 : 5 l.T.Il. ~O:>. (2) ( !!!49) 17 1.T .R.173 (P.C,). (3) [19GO] 3 S.C.R. 681. (4) [l!!ti0] 5,. c. 60.
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 543
1961
We may now pass on to the facts of the case before us. The respondent carried on the business of selling chanks. It obtained its Aupplies from divers, from whom it purchased the chanks, and having got them, perhaps cheap, it . resold theµi a.t a. profit. This is one mode in which it carried oil its business. In this business, it was directly buying its stock-in-trade for resale. The other method was to acquire exclusive right to fish for chanks by employing divers and nets. The business then changed to something different. The sale was now of the product of another business, in which divers and equipment were first employed to get the shells. It thus took leases of extensive coastline with all the right to fish for chanks for some years. The shells were not the subject of the bargain at a.II, as were the tendu leaves; but the bargain was about the right to fi~h. There can be no doubt that what it paid the divers when it bought chanks from them with the view of reselling them was expenditure laid out wholly and exc.Jusively for the purpose of its business, which was not of a capital nature. That business was buying goods and reselling them at a profit. But a different kind of business was involved when it we1;1t in for fishing for chanks. To be able to fish for chanks in reserved ,waters it had to obtain the right first. It, therefore took lease of that right. To Mohanlal Hargovind, the leaves were raw materials, and that firm preferred to buy a number of crops over years rather than buy them as it went along. Hence the remark that the leaves were bought, as if they were in a shop.
The Commissiorur o., Jncome•tax, Madras v. K.TcM.T.M. Abdul Koyoom HidoJatvlluh J ·
Under the lease which the respondent obtained, it had a right to take only chanks of particular dimensions and shape, but it had to fish for them and obtain them first. The rest of the chanks were not its property. The smaller chanks had to be returned alive to the sea, and Velampuri chanks had to be compulsorily sold to the state. Of Courae, the smaller ohanke put back into the sea
IHI
Thi Ccmvnissio1ur of ln:on11 .. lOJC, Madras
v. J<.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayo""'
HiiayoMlah J.
5U SUPREME COUl~ H.EPORTI:l [1962] SUPP. would grow, and if filhed later, be its propel'ty to take, but till they grnw, it had no claim. The chanks were on the bed of the sea. Their exact existence was nut known, till the divers found them, or they got netted. Chanks which were there one day might have been washed back into the deep sea, and might never be washed back into a place where they would be within reach. Similarly, other chanks not there one day might come within reach on another day. All these matters make the case entirely different from the case of a purchase from the divers. In obtaining the lease, the respondent obtained a speculative right to fish for chanks which it hoped to obtain and which might be in large quantities or small, according to its luck. The repondent changed the nature of its business to fishing for chanks instead of buying them. To be able to fish, it had to arrange for an area to fish, and that a'rrangement had to be of some duration to be effective.
This is not a case of so much clay or so much salt petre or a dump of tailings or leaves on the trees in a forest. The two modes in which the respondent did the businCSll furnish adequate distinguishing characteristics. Here is an agreement to reserve a source, where the repondent hoped to find ~hells which, when found, became its e&ock-intrade but which, insitu, were no more the firm's than a shell in the deepest part of the ocean beyond the reach of its divers and nets. The expenses of fishing shells were its current expenses as also the expenses incurred over the purchase of shells from the divers. But to say that the payment of lease money for reserving an exclusive right to fish for chanks was on a par with payments of the other character is to err. It was possible to say of the former, as it was possible to say of the tendu leaves in Mohanlal Hargovirul's case('), that the chanks were bought because the money paid was the price of the chanks. But it would be a straining of the imagination to say that the amount paid
Ill (19f9) 17 LT. R. 471 (P.C.).
545
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS
for reserving the coastline for future fi8hing wa~ the price of chanks, with which the respondent did its business. That• amount was paid to obtain an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive right to fish, and the . payment was not related to · the chanks, which it might or might not have brought to the surface in this speculative business. The rights were not trasferable, but if they were and the firm had sold them, the gain, if any, would have been on the capital side and not a realising of the chanks as stock-in-trade, because none had been bought by the firm, and none would have been sold by it.
1961
Tlte Commissioner of Income-1t1:>:, /If odros v. K.T. M.T.M . .Abdul Ka)'Oom
Hid•yatullah J.
In our opinion, the decision of the High Court, with all due respect, WllAI, therefore, erroneous, and the ear lier decision of the Full Bench of the same High Court was ri@ht in the circum1tanceH of the case.
In the result, the appeal is allowed; but there will be no order about cost .
. BY CoURT. In accordance with the majority judgment of the Court, the appeal is allowed, but there will be no order about costs.
MOHAMMAD SERAJUDDIN
fl,
1961 N ovnnb~r 24.
R. C. MISHRA
(J. L. KAPUR, II. HlDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Oustom•-Seizure t( documenu-Warrant · issued by Magi•trate-Ouatodf of 4ocume11t8-lf cuato1r1B aut!iorities •ntitled to-Facili11'8 for iMjHction-Sea Customs 'A.ct, 1878 ( 8 of 187 8), 8. 172,-0otle Ill Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 8. 96, Sclleds/e V 1'orm VIII.
The respondent wao suspected of having exported dutiable goods in contraYendon of the Sea Customs Act and of having secreted docmnentl ia connection therewith in two prem iJes. An applicaP<>n - made w the Chief Presidency
1 issue framed by the court
Whether lease money paid for exclusive right to gather conch shells from the sea was revenue expenditure deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & BerarDistinguished¶206
(1949) 17 I.T.R. 473 (P.C.)
Pingle Industries Ltd., Secunderabad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, HyderabadApplied¶216
[1960] 3 S.C.R. 681 · Who else cites this
Assam Bengal Cement Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West BengalReferred¶54
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 972 · Who else cites this
Kauri Timber Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of TaxesReferred¶132
[1913] A.C. 771
Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-taxReferred¶69
[1937] 5 I.T.R. 202
Robert Addie & Sons Collieries Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland RevenueReferred¶62
[1921] 8 T.C. 671, 676
Alianza Co. v. BellReferred¶127
[1904] 2 K.B. 666
Hood Barrs v. Commissioners of Inland RevenueReferred¶146
[1954] 35 T.C. 188
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom
S. K. Das
J. L. Kapur
M. Hidayatullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
