Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aggregate sum of Rs. 92,40,329 being interest received on IDBI bonds for a period of three years, was chargeable to tax in the asst. yr. 1989-90 instead of bringing to tax in the year to which it relates ?

High Court Of Madras

E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. vs. CIT

Sections 4, 5

Asst. Year 1989-90

R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.

Tax Case No. 72 of 1996

4th September, 2002

Counsel Appeared

P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Assessee : T.C.A. Ramanujam, for the Revenue

JUDGMENT

R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :

The asst. yr. is 1989-90. The questions referred are two and the reference is at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred are : “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aggregate sum of Rs. 92,40,329 being interest received on IDBI bonds for a period of three years, was chargeable to tax in the asst. yr. 1989-90 instead of bringing to tax in the year to which it relates ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the compensation for termination of the selling agreement was taxable as revenue receipts ?” 2. The assessee had received interest on the deposit made by it in the Industrial Development Bank of India in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The assessee received the discounted interest for the whole period by exercising an option that had been given to it. This Court in the case of CIT vs. A. R. Santhanakrishnan (2002) 174 CTR (Mad) 446 : (2002) 256 ITR 187 (Mad) has, in similar circumstances, held that the interest so received could not be spread over to the following two years when the assessee had chosen to exercise the option and received interest for all the three years in the year of account. The law laid down in that decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as well. The first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee had entered into an agreement with its subsidiary company, Amphetronix Ltd., on 18th April, 1986, which agreement was to be in force for a period of five years under which the assessee-company was to buy the products made by its subsidiary at a discounted price on a principal to principal basis. The product so produced was purchased and thereafter marketed by the assessee. On 20th July, 1987, the assessee and its subsidiary entered into another agreement wherein it was stated that it could be in the commercial interest of the subsidiary to take over the distribution and sale of its products and, therefore, the sale agreement of 18th April,1986, was terminated by mutual consent. The agreement dt. 20th July, 1987, also provided for a payment of a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the assessee. Such payment was stated to be in consideration of the assessee-company undertaking not to engage itself in the sale of other similar products of other manufacturers. The AO as also the CIT and the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim that if not the whole at least a part of that amount of Rs. 20 lakhs should be treated as capital receipt.

The AO and the CIT held, which finding has been upheld by the Tribunal, that the payment of this Rs. 20 lakhs purportedly for the assessee agreeing to accept a restraint on its trading in goods similar to that manufactured by the subsidiary, was not a genuine transaction, but was only intended to transfer to the assessee a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs from its subsidiary as consideration for the termination of the agreement. The subsidiary company is, after the termination of the selling agreement, to carry on the distribution and sale of its products itself, which would mean that, that company would earn the profit which the assessee otherwise would have earned by the sale of the subsidiary’s products. Thus, the profits on the sale of the products of the subsidiary to the extent it had been allowed to be enjoyed by the assessee was thereafter to be retained by the subsidiary itself. In the normal course, the holding company would not carry on a business competing with that of its subsidiary and thereby reduce the profits which the subsidiary would have otherwise earned. The reason shown in the further agreement by which the earlier selling agreement was terminated, for the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs was therefore, rightly regarded by the AO as also by the Tribunal, as only intended to lay the foundation for claiming and treating that amount as a capital receipt and not for any other reason. We do not find any good reason to disagree with the Tribunal in adopting such an approach. The second question also is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

[Citation : 258 ITR 404]

Malcare WordPress Security