Skip to content


The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Minsara Rasam Co., Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in138Ind.Cas.273
AppellantThe Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentThe Minsara Rasam Co., Ltd.
Excerpt:
income tax act (xi of 1922), section 10(2)(ix) - deduction--purchase of patent medicine--agreement to pay royalty--payment of royalty--wh ether deductible from income. - - if that is so, then this clearly is, as the commissioner of income tax points out in his reference to up, taxable as capital expenditure. therefore, that contention must fail......on every bottle of minsararasam sold be paid to the party on the second part as long as the said minsararasam company ltd., is in existence.with regard to the former clause, it is stated that the rs. 81,000 have been paid by the company to dr. varadarajulu naidu end with regard to the second clause, that he was paid in the year of account rs. 13,000 odd representing eight annas on every bottle of the medicine sold by the company. in the memorandum of association of the company one of the objects of the company isto buy the minsararasam company, salem, its goodwill, rights and privileges from dr. varadara-jula naidu, salem, for rs. 81,000 and thus become the sole proprietors to manufacture, sell and generally deal in minsararasam.it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this.....
Judgment:

Beasley, C.J.

1. The petitioners here, a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of 'The Minsara Rasam' a patent medicine, claimed a deduction from their income in the year of account of a sum of Rs. 13,000 odd as a lawfully deductible item. They claimed to deduct that sum under Section 10 (2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act as being expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains. It appears that one Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu had invented this patent medicine or at any rate was the owner of its secret; and on the 29th March, 1923, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu for the purchase by them and for the sale by him of all rights and privileges of manufacturing, selling and generally dealing in Minsararasam and covenanted that, if they successfully promoted the company, Dr. Vsradarajulu Naidu should to them all such rights and privileges for manufacturing, gelling and generally dealing in the medicine subject to the following conditions--it is neceesary to Bet rut only two of them.

(1) that the parties on the first part pay to the party on the second part the sum of Rs. 81,000 in five yearly instalments at not less than Rs. 16,000 a year with effect from 1st April, 1923, and (2) that after the expiry of five years a royalty of annas eight on every bottle of Minsararasam sold be paid to the party on the second part as long as the said Minsararasam Company Ltd., is in existence.

With regard to the former clause, it is stated that the Rs. 81,000 have been paid by the company to Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu end with regard to the second clause, that he was paid in the year of account Rs. 13,000 odd representing eight annas on every bottle of the medicine sold by the company. In the Memorandum of Association of the company one of the objects of the company is

to buy the Minsararasam Company, Salem, its goodwill, rights and privileges from Dr. Varadara-jula Naidu, Salem, for Rs. 81,000 and thus become the sole proprietors to manufacture, sell and generally deal in Minsararasam.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this payment of Rs. 13,000 odd to Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu in pursuance of Clause (2) of the agreement of the 29th March was a payment made by them solely for the purpose of earning the profits or gains of the business which in the year of account amounted to Rs. 28,000. The question referred to us depends entirely upon how the agreement before mentioned is construed. It is the petitioners' contention that Clause (2) does not relate the consideration for the purchase of the right and privileges of manufacturing, Belling 2nd generally dealing in the medicine but that the purchase price is that set out in Clause (1) namely, Rs. 81,000. It seems quite clear to me that Clauses (1) and (2) must be taken together as between them providing the consideration for the purchase of this medicine. If that is so, then this clearly is, as the Commissioner of Income Tax points out in his reference to up, taxable as capital expenditure. It was the amount of money expended for the purchase by the company of this medicine and as such would be assessable and not a lawful deduction under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is further contended that Clause (2) of the agreement cannot be said to be consideration for the purchase of the medicine because it provides for something indefinite. It is quite true that it does provide for something indefinite to some extent. At the time of the agreement it could not be known what quantity of medicine would be sold and what amount would be realised by that sale. But as soon as the company started selling the medicine what was indefinite at the time of the agreement became definite and ascertainable at any time and the accounts of the company would show the amount due to the Doctor under Clause (2) of the agreement. Therefore, that contention must fail.

2. The answer to the reference must, therefore, be that the payment of the royalty in accordance with Clause (2) of the agreement is not of a sum lawfully deductable under Section 10 (2) (ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act. Costs of the Commissioner Rs. 250.

3. Ramesam, J.--I agree.

4. Cornish, J.--I agree.


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