GORDON WOODROFFEE LEATHER MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS
Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 211; 1961 INSC 352
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA , J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1961 INSC 352. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1961-12-20. GORDON WOODROFFEE LEATHER MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS. Read...
Judgment text
. , ~. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS GORDON WOODROFFEE LEATHER MANUFACTURING CO. v. 211 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS (B. P. SINHA, c. J. , J. L. KAPUR, ~L HmAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and J. ·R. MUDHOLKAR, ,JJ. ) Incom. ~-Ta. x-Gratuity-. Payment of nof. in pur. s1! 'ance nf any scluime but 1;ol1tntaril. 1 1 . for lonq and varu. rJblr. servicPs- Whelher detlnclion can be claimed-Income-Ta. ~ Act, 1922 ( 11of1. 922), 8. 10 (2) (xv). The company accepted the resignation of one of its directors and in appreciation of his long valnable services to the com- pany, paict him a gratuity of Rs. 40,nOO/-. Tr. is amount was claimed as a·: deduction under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Income. tax Act which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, on the ground that the appellant company had no pension scheme,; the payment was voluntary and that the entry in the assessec s boob clearly indicated it to be a capital payment.
Held,' that the payment does not fall within the provi- sions of'· I0(2)(xv) of the Act. The amount was paid not in pursuance· of any scheme of payment of gratuities nor was it an amount which the reripien t expected to be p ment from B! 'rvioo. The appeal relates to the &88e88DJ~nt year HJ50·51. M/s. Gordon Woodroffee & Co. (Madl'llB) Ltd. , was incorporated as a private limited com- pany in 1922 and became the Managing Agent of a. public limited company M/e. Gordon Woodroffee Leather Manufacturing Company Ltd. , which is the &BB! 'SBOO. One J. H. Philips was €mployed in the Managing Agent Company from 1922 to 1935 and from 1935 he became an employee of the appellant company and became its Dirertor from 1940. On March 22, 1949, he wrote a letter to the appellant company exprcasing bis intention to resign from the Board of the Company ae from April 4, 1949, upon his retirement from the employment of the company and requested that his resignation be accepted.
On March 24, 1949, the Board of Directors of the appellant Company p&Blled a resolution that his resignation be accepted and in appreciation of his long and valuable services to Company hebe paid a gratuity of Rs. 50,000/- out 2 S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 213 of which the appellant Company was to pay Rs. 40,000/- and the Managing Agent Company the balance of Rs. 10,000/-. On April 4, 1949, this resolution of the Board of Directors was confirmed. On the saine date a resolution to the same effect was passed at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company and before the end of its account- ing year i. e. October 31, 1949, this amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to Mr. J. H. Philips. This amount was claimed as a deduction under s. 10 (2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act which ~eads :·- Section 10(2) "Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely: ............................................................ ... ...... . .. . .............
~ ............................... . (xv) any expenditure (not being a'. l allow- ance of the nature described in any of tho clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive, and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expen- ded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession er vocation. " The amount was disallowed by the Income· tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the appellant Company had no pension scheme; the payment was voluntary an. d that the entry in the assl,ssee's books clearly indicated it to be a capital payment. Against this order the appellant Company took an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It held that a 0Cording to the reso- lution the gratuity was paid "for long and valu- able sen,ices to the Company" ; that there was nothing to indicate that Mr. J. 1!. Philips had accepted a lower salar.
Y in expectation of get. ting a gratuity at the end of his service ; that there 1961 Gordon TV oorlro. f! tt Leather llfanufactu. ri11g Co v. The CommiJsir,ner vf Income·tax, JJ1adras ! (apur J. llltJ c. ,... w .. ,/to. ff,, Lu,. ,, MG11Mjactu i11g Co. .. n.. CommissiclU J·. 1~1 its good faith was not in doubt and in support of Gordo• Woad,. Jfu the contention several caseH were relied upon. Uallo" Ma••f"''"'i"' Co. In our opinion on the findings &H given the pay- n,·c. :,;. ;,,;,,... , of ment in dispute <loes not fall within the prodsiuns 1,,,.. ,,. ,. ,,, MaJr'" of s. 10(::'. )(xv). The amount w11s paid not in pur- l(. ,. , J. suance of any scheme of payment of gratuities nor was it au amount which the recipient expected to be paid for long and faithful service but it was a voluntary payment not with the object of facilita- ting the carrying on of the business of the appellant Company or as a matter of commercial expediency but in recognition of long and faithful service of Mr. J.
H. Philips. There V£&S no practice in the appellant Company to pay such amounts and it <lid not affect the quantum of sal. iry of the recipient. The two cases Htrongly relied upon by the appellant Company were J. ,P; Hancol: v. General Reversioruiry & Investment Oompany Ltd. (') and J. W. Smith v. Tli,e, lncorporalR. d Council of Law Reporting for Eng/,and and Wales('). In the former case the a. ssessee Com- pany sought to chargA as a trade expense a lump sum which it had paid for tho purchase for the benefit of a former actuary, of an annuity equal in amount to the pension which the Company had resolved to pay him. This wu. s held to be an ex- pense admissible in computing the Company's pro. fits assessable to iucome·tax. But in that case it was the practice of the assessee company to grant pemions to its servant!!
after a oon~iderable period of service and this practice was known to the em· ployees~and aff~cted the rate of salary paid by the Company in that the employees wore willing to serve tho Compa11y at lower rates than they other. wise would have by reason of the expectation of the pension at the end of their service. In the latter case there was a praotioo of granting gratuities and th~t WM the ground for holding th" amount ·to be a proper dedqction: (I) (1918) 7 T. C. 358. (2) (1914) 6 T. C. 477. 2 S. C. R. SUPH. l<:ME COURT REPORTS ryl~ • I In our opinion the proper test to apply in this case is, was the payment m:ide as a matter of prac· ticc which affected the quantum of salary or was there an expectation by the employee of getting a gratuity or was the sum of money expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order in· directly to facilitate the carrying on of the business. But this has not been shown and therefore the amount claimed is not a deductible item under s.
10(2)(xv). The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. NEW BANK OF INDIA LTD. v. PEAREY LAL ( B. P. SINHA, c. J. , J. L. KAPUR, M. ! ImAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ. ) Bank-Mon<y delivered by constituent-;--Special instruc- tion to await direction for deposits-If held by the bank as trustee-Scheme for settlement of bank's liabilittes sanctioned- Amount, if subject to it. The respondent delivered certain sums of money to the appellant-bank at Lahore for transmission to Calcutta, with instructions to await his directions regarding the opening' of accounts for keeping the money in fixed deposit in the Cal- cutta Branch of the bank which was proposed to be opened in the near future. The respondent did not however give any instruction for opening any account, fixed deposit or otherwise in regard to the amounts after they reached Calcutta.
Within a few days after the opening of the Calcutta branch of the bank it ceased making payments and a moratorium for a. limited period was declared under an ordinance issued by the Governor General restraining the bank from making payments to its depositors. After the expiry of the period of the mora- torium the Calcutta branch of the bank raised objections to the respondent's application for withdrawal of the amount 1961 Gordon W11udroj/ie Le(Jt/ie1 lll anuja .. Juring Co, v. The Cemmissio11er of Income~fa. 'I: M1,. dros Kapur J, 1961 December 20,
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.