Skip to content


Tata Hydro-electric Agencies, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Reference No. 12 of 1934
Reported in[1936]4ITR92(Bom)
AppellantTata Hydro-electric Agencies, Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Excerpt:
- section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not..........by an agreement made on the 24th september, 1919 tata sons ltd., were appointed agent of or the tata power co. ltd. for 41 years on a commission of 10 per cent. profits plus an office allowance and there was power to assign the agreement and to assign any part of the commission. by an agreement of the 15th october, 1926 tata sons ltd., agreed to pay e. f. dinshaw, ltd. two annas in the rupees out of the commission. which they received under the 1919 agreement, and four days later, that is on the 19th october, 1926, tata sons, ltd., entered into similar agreement with one tilden smith. on the 21st november, 1929 tata sons ltd., assigned their rights under the 1919 agreement to the present assessee subject to the agreement with f. e. dinshaw, ltd. and tilden smith. we are told that.....
Judgment:

BEAUMONT C.J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 (2) in which he raises two questions. The fact giving rise to the questions are simple. By an agreement made on the 24th September, 1919 Tata Sons Ltd., were appointed Agent of or the Tata Power Co. Ltd. for 41 years on a commission of 10 per cent. profits plus an office allowance and there was power to assign the agreement and to assign any part of the commission. By an agreement of the 15th October, 1926 Tata sons Ltd., agreed to pay E. F. Dinshaw, Ltd. two annas in the rupees out of the commission. Which they received under the 1919 agreement, and four days later, that is on the 19th October, 1926, Tata Sons, Ltd., entered into similar agreement with one Tilden Smith. On the 21st November, 1929 Tata Sons Ltd., assigned their rights under the 1919 agreement to the present assessee subject to the agreement with F. E. Dinshaw, Ltd. and Tilden Smith. We are told that subsequently Tata Power Ltd., entered into direct agreement with the assessee for payment of 10 per cent. Commission to them, and the assessee entered into a direct agreement with F. E. Dinshaw Ltd., and Tilden smith for the payment of the two annas in the rupees to them. The first question raised is whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee company has been correctly assessed on the total amount of Rs. 5,17,288 received by it in respect of the 10 per cent. commissioner from Tata Power Ltd. as profits and gains of the business carried on by the it as the managing agents of the Tata Power Co., Ltd., that is to say, whether the assessees have been correctly assessed on the whole 10 per cent. Commission, or whether they are entitled to deduct four annas in the rupees which they have to pay to F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. and Tilden Smith. That part of the case seems to fall exactly within the decision of this court in Macdonald & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and we must follow that decision and answer the first question in the affirmative.

The Second question is whether the assessees can deduct the commission of two annas in the rupees which they have paid to F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. and Tilden Smith as being an expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning commission, and thereby being a deduction authorised under Section 10(2) Clause (ix) of the Income Tax Act. The question whether the expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of earning the profits or gains i.e., the commission is one of fact and there is no finding of the fact on which we can hold that the deduction was one falling within that sub-section. That being so, the second question must be answered in the negative.

The assessee must pay the costs of this reference on the original side scale to be taxed by the Taxing Master.

RANGNEKAR J. - I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //