# M. K. BROTIIERS (P) LTD v. C.I.T. KANPUR

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 1077
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-29
- **Case number:** C.A. No. 342 of 1969
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, P. Jaganmohan Re.Ody, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-k-brotiiers-p-ltd-v-c-i-t-kanpur-5732
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

c
D
E
J'
G
H
lncom11-tax Act (11 of 1922)-Amount due to company from Its sole
selling agerl.t-Llability undertaken by appellant to pay amount in consideraio11 of its appointment as sole selling agent-If Capital or revenue
expenditure.
in 1955, a large amount was due to a corporation from a. firm which
was then its oole selling agent. As a result of an agreement between the
appellant, the corporati>Jn, and the firm, the appellant undertook to discharge the liability of the firm in consideration of its being appointed the
S<,lle selling agent in place of the firm.
In 1956, an indenture was execut·
ed by the corporation and the appellant relating to the appointment of the
appellant as &Jle selling agent, and in thi; indenture, it was agreed ·that
the corporation should be authorised to retain an amount equal to 1 /7
of the trade discount due to the sole selling agents with a minimum of
RB. 50,000 a year, for discharging the liability, so that, the amount payable
to the sole selling agents would be the amount payable as trade discpunt
minus the aforesaid amount retained by the corporation.
Clause 13 of
the indenture provided that the selling agents shall have no claim whatsoever to any such amounts retained out of the normal trade discount
and adjusted in the account of the firm as if the amount so retained was
not payable to them.
For the assessment year 1956-57, out of the commission payable to the appellant "' selling agents the corporation retained
a sun1 under the contract for adjustment against the outstanding dues of
the firm.
The appellant, in its statement of acco,,qt, credited the f~ll
arr.•)unt of commission to its profit and loss acC'ount, and the sum retained
by the oprporation was shown as a deduction therefrom. The Department,
the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court on reference, disallowed the
deduction on the ground that it was a capital expenditure and not a
revenue expenditure an~ held that the amount was liable to tax.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : (1 ) The answer to the question whether the money paid was
a revenue expenditure or· capital expenditure does aot depend upon whether
the an1ount paid is large or small or whether H was paid in a lumpsum or
by instalments. It depends upon the purpose for which the payment had
been made and the expenditure incurred. If the object of making the
payment is 1P acquire a capital asset the payment would partake of the
character of a capital payment even though it is not made in a lumpsum
but by instalments over a period of time. If any such asset or advantage
for the enduring benefit of the business is thus acquired or brought into
existence it would be immaterial whether the source of the payment was
ca11itat or t~ income of the oondlrn or whether the payment was made
once for all m was made periodically.
On the contrary, payment made
ifl the cour e of and for the _purpose of carrying on business or ~rading
activity would be revenue expenditure ever: t~1ough the -pa)'."ment 1s o~ a
large amount and ·was not to be made penod1cally. The aim and ob1ect
20-L 1728 ipCl/73
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.CH
ef the expenditure would determine the character of the
expenditure
whether it is a. capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The source
or ihe manner of the payment would then be of no consequence. fl08Z
C-HJ
Assan1 Bengal Ceme_nt Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tc.x, West
Bengal [19551 27 I.T.R. (34 on p. 45) and P. B. Divecha (Deceased)
and After I-lint His Legal Representatives and Another v. Commis~oner
of Income Tax, Bombay City I [1963) 48 I.T.R. 222, followed.
(2) In the present case, the appellant got the sole 'elling agency ia
oonsiaeration of its agreeing to pay the amount which \vas then due from
the firm to the corporation. If the appellant paid the amount ih a lump
sum in consideration of its being appointed the sole selling agent the pay•
ment t.vould have constituted c'.apital expenditure as it was an amount
paid for acquiring o

## Text

) •
A
M. K. BROTIIERS (P) LTD .
v.
C.I.T. KANPUR
August 29, 1972
1077
B
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN RE.ODY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
c
D
E
J'
G
H
lncom11-tax Act (11 of 1922)-Amount due to company from Its sole
selling agerl.t-Llability undertaken by appellant to pay amount in consideraio11 of its appointment as sole selling agent-If Capital or revenue
expenditure.
in 1955, a large amount was due to a corporation from a. firm which
was then its oole selling agent. As a result of an agreement between the
appellant, the corporati>Jn, and the firm, the appellant undertook to discharge the liability of the firm in consideration of its being appointed the
S<,lle selling agent in place of the firm.
In 1956, an indenture was execut·
ed by the corporation and the appellant relating to the appointment of the
appellant as &Jle selling agent, and in thi; indenture, it was agreed ·that
the corporation should be authorised to retain an amount equal to 1 /7
of the trade discount due to the sole selling agents with a minimum of
RB. 50,000 a year, for discharging the liability, so that, the amount payable
to the sole selling agents would be the amount payable as trade discpunt
minus the aforesaid amount retained by the corporation.
Clause 13 of
the indenture provided that the selling agents shall have no claim whatsoever to any such amounts retained out of the normal trade discount
and adjusted in the account of the firm as if the amount so retained was
not payable to them.
For the assessment year 1956-57, out of the commission payable to the appellant "' selling agents the corporation retained
a sun1 under the contract for adjustment against the outstanding dues of
the firm.
The appellant, in its statement of acco,,qt, credited the f~ll
arr.•)unt of commission to its profit and loss acC'ount, and the sum retained
by the oprporation was shown as a deduction therefrom. The Department,
the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court on reference, disallowed the
deduction on the ground that it was a capital expenditure and not a
revenue expenditure an~ held that the amount was liable to tax.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : (1 ) The answer to the question whether the money paid was
a revenue expenditure or· capital expenditure does aot depend upon whether
the an1ount paid is large or small or whether H was paid in a lumpsum or
by instalments. It depends upon the purpose for which the payment had
been made and the expenditure incurred. If the object of making the
payment is 1P acquire a capital asset the payment would partake of the
character of a capital payment even though it is not made in a lumpsum
but by instalments over a period of time. If any such asset or advantage
for the enduring benefit of the business is thus acquired or brought into
existence it would be immaterial whether the source of the payment was
ca11itat or t~ income of the oondlrn or whether the payment was made
once for all m was made periodically.
On the contrary, payment made
ifl the cour e of and for the _purpose of carrying on business or ~rading
activity would be revenue expenditure ever: t~1ough the -pa)'."ment 1s o~ a
large amount and ·was not to be made penod1cally. The aim and ob1ect
20-L 1728 ipCl/73
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.CH
ef the expenditure would determine the character of the
expenditure
whether it is a. capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The source
or ihe manner of the payment would then be of no consequence. fl08Z
C-HJ
Assan1 Bengal Ceme_nt Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tc.x, West
Bengal [19551 27 I.T.R. (34 on p. 45) and P. B. Divecha (Deceased)
and After I-lint His Legal Representatives and Another v. Commis~oner
of Income Tax, Bombay City I [1963) 48 I.T.R. 222, followed.
(2) In the present case, the appellant got the sole 'elling agency ia
oonsiaeration of its agreeing to pay the amount which \vas then due from
the firm to the corporation. If the appellant paid the amount ih a lump
sum in consideration of its being appointed the sole selling agent the pay•
ment t.vould have constituted c'.apital expenditure as it was an amount
paid for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for
the enduring benefit of the business. The fact that the amount was paid
not in a lump sum but was paid in instalments through deductions out of
the commission due to the appellant would not make any difference.
[1082A.Q
(3) Even if un.der cl. 13 of the indenture the appellant oould not
make any claim to the amount which had been retained by the corporation
it would make no materiru difference so far . s the true nature of that
amount was concerned. The amount was deducted by the oorporation In
pursuance of the agreement entered into by the appellant with the corporation and the firm, according to which, the appellant had to pay that
amount in t!te form. of deductions out of its ct>mmisslon in consideration
of being appointed the sole selling agent, It was not a case of the appli·
cation of income to discharge a liability incurred in the course of running
the business but a liability undertaken fur the purpose of acquiring the
sole selling agency right which was an asset of a capital nature. [1D8'
D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION :
C.A. No. 342 of 1969.
Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of
India from the judgment and order dated February 16, 1966
of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Case No. 434 of 1962.
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
T. A. Ramachandran, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-Khanna, J.
This appeal on certificate granted by the Allaha,
bad High Court is directed against the judgment of that court
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
\ '
A
B
c
'
D
'
E
F
G
H
M. K. llROS, LTD. V, C.I.T. KANPUR (Khanna, J.)
1079
whereby it answered the following two questions referred to it
under section 6 6 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, i 922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appt\llant and in favour·
of revenue:
" ( 1 ) Whether on the facts and on a true and proper
interpretation of the agreement dated 31-7-1956,
between the British India Corporation and the
appellant company, tre letters of Sri Kailash Nath
Agarwal, the letters of Managing Directors, the
sum of Rs. 43,333/ retained by the British India
Corporation and adjusted by it to the credit of
Sharma & Co. was the assessable income of the
appellant company ?
( 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the sum of Rs. 43,333/-
represented an
expenditure under section 10 ?"
The matter relates to the assessmePt. year 1956-57.
The appellant is a private limited company and A:ailash Nath Agar.val is one
of its directors. As per agreement dated July 31, 1956 the appellant was appointed with effect from April 1, 1955 the sole selling
agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills for the sale of yam and cloth
manufactured by the said mills.
The Kanpur Cotton Mills is
owned by the British India Corporation hereinafter referred to as
BIC.
Prior to
the appellant's appointment Sharma & Co., a
partnership firm, was functioning as the sole selling agent cf the
Kanpur Cotton Mills. The amount due by Sharma & Co. to the
Kanpur Cotton Mills as on March 21, 1955 was Rs. 8,39,350/15/6
inclusive of interest.
On March 23, 1955 a letter was addressed
on behalf of Sharm·a & Co. to the Managing Director of BIC
stating that an agreement had been entered into with Kailash Nath
Agarwal whereby Sharma & Co. had agreed to give up the sole
selling agency of the Kanpur Cotton Mills.
The Managing Director of BIC was requested to appoint Kailash Nath Agarwal or any
firm or company forced by him for this purpose as the sole selling
agent in place of Sharma & Co.
Reference was also made in that
letter to an agreement between Sharma & Co. and Kailash Nath
Agarwal in the folloV'{ing words :
"As you will notice from the agreement with Sri
Kailash Nath Agarwal we are entitled to receive one
seventh of the commission due to the new selling agency
or to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per annum whichever is
greater, till your dues with interest are fully liquidated.
We do hereby authorise you to retain this amount, thus
becoming due to us out of the commission payable to the
agency and adjust the san1c to oqr firm's account with
the Corporation."
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] l S.C.R.
On the same day, i.e. March 23, 1955 Kailash Nath Agarwal
addressed a letter to the Managi.Rg Director of BIC informing hiin
of the agreement with Sharma & Co. and requesting for the grant
of sole selling agency to the appellant. The letter concluded as
follows:
A
"I hereby authorise you in case you are pleased to
B
grant your sole selling agency to my said firm to retain
one-seventh of our commission for adjustment in the
account of M/s. Sharma & Co. with minimum of
Rs. 50,000/- per annum till your dues against them are
cleared with interest."
The Mananging Director of BIC later on that day, i.e. March 23,
C
1955 addressed a letter to Sharma & Co. accepting its resignation
from the sole selling agency of the Kanpur Cotton Mills and
about the appointment 'Of Kailash Nath Agarwal or his nominee as
the sole selling agent in succession to Sharma & Co.
In regard to
the liquidation of dues from Sharma & Co. the Managing Director
of BIC wrote :
D
"As agreed between Shri Kailash Nath Agarwal and
yourselves we shall deduct one seventh of the commission or Rs. 50,000/- whichever is greater out of the
commission earned by the new sole selling agents and
credit the same to your account with us till our dues
against you standing today at Rs. 8,39,350/ 15/6 are
completely liquidated with interest thereon at 6% ."
On July 31, 1956 on indenture was executed by BIC and the
appellant relating to the apointment of the appellant as the sole
selling agent of the ;Kanpur Cotton Mills for the sale of yarn,
cloth and cotton manufactures with effect from April I, 1955. In
this indenture the appellant ratified the agreement entered into by
Kailash Nath Agarwal with Sharma & Co. on March 23, 1955 and
authorised BIC "to give cffoct to the said agreement generally and
in particular to retain an amount equal to one-seventh of the trade
discount of U% due to the sole selling agents with a minimum of
Rs. 50,000/ per annum so that the amount payable to the sole
selling agents shall be the amount payable at the rate of U %
minus the aforesaid amount retained by the corporation as payable to M/ s Sharma & Co." Clauses 12 and 13 of the indenture
were as under :
"Clause 12
That in the event of the dissolution of M/ s Sharma
& Co. before the complete repayment of their liability
the sole selling ·agents agree that the corporation may
continue ·to retain an amount equal to one-seventh of
E
F
G
H
' ....
· . ...
. -1
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
r
H
M. K. BROS. LTD. v. C.I.T. KANPUR (Khanna, J.)
1081
the trade discount of I 3/4% or 50,000/· whichever is
greater and adjust it towards such dues of M/s Sharma
& Co. as may them be standing.
Clause 13
That the authority given above to the corporation
to retain and adjust a part of the trade discount towards
the outstanding against M/s Sharma & Co. will not be
revocable and will be binding on the sole selling agents,
their succ'essor, or assigns only so Jong as they act
as the corporation's sole selling agents and will be deemed to be a condition on which the sole selling agency
has been granted to the agents.
The agents will have
no claim whatsoever to any such aniounts retained out
of their normal trade discount and adjusted in the
. aceount of M/s Sharma & Co. as if the amount so retained was not payable to 1;hem."
During the year under reference, the commission as per terms
of the indenture dated July 31, 1956 payable to tlie appellant
amounted to Rs. 2,06,283.
Ouu of this amount, Rs. 43,333
were retained byBIC under the contract for adjustment against the
outst.anding dues of Sharma & Co. in accordance with the terms
Qf the indenture. In its statement of account the appellant cre-
.dited the full amount of commission of Rs. 2,06,283 to its profit
and·loss account.
The sum of .Rs. 43,333 was, however, shown
as a deduction therefrom. During the assessment proceedings, the
Income Tax Officer disallowed the above deduction.
The order
of the Income Tax Officer in this respect was upheld by the
Appellant Assistant Commissioner in appeal as well a>
by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in second appeal. On applica-'
tion filed by the appellant, the Tribunal referred the questions re- ·
produced earlier to the High Court. The High Court, as stated
· above, answered the two questions against the appellant.
In appeal Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the
appellant has
·argued that the amount of Rs. 43,333 was a permissible deduction
and the High Court wa> in error in decidinp: this matter against
the appellant. There is, in our opinion, no fore,, in this contP-n·
tion and we agree with Mr. Ram Chandran, learned counsel for
the respondent, that the judgment of the High Court shonld be
unhdd.
It would appear from the resume of facts j!iven above
that ;n March 1955 an amount of Rs. 8,39,350/15/6 was due
to BIC from the fim1 Sharrn;i & Co. who was the previous sole
selling a.~ent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. As a result of agreement ktween the apvellant, BIO and Sharma & Co. the -appellant
undertook to discharge the liability of Sharma & Co. in lieu of
being. appointed the sole selling agent of the Kanpui' Cotton
. Mills in place of Sharma & Co. It can, therefore, be said that
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl 973] 1 S.C R.
the appellant got the sole selling agency of th~ Kanplli . Cotton
Mills in consideration of its agreeing to pay Rs . . 8,39,350·15·6
which was the amount due from Shanna & Co: to BIC, It is·nQt
disputed by Mr. Maheshwari that if the amount of Rs. 8,39,350
15/ 6 had been paid by the appellant in lump sum, in consideration
of its· being appointed the sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton
Mills, the payment would have constitut,Cd capital expenditure.
as it was an amount paid for acquiring or bringing into existence
an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business.
The fact that the amount was paid not in lump sum but was paid
in insta1ments through deductions our of the commission due to
the appellant would not, in our opinion, make any difference.
The answer to the question as to whether the money paid is a re·
venue.expenditure or capital expenditure depends not so much
upon the fact as to whether the amount paid is large or small or
whether it has been paid in lump sum or by ins~alments , as it
does upon the purpose for which the payment has been made
and expenditure incurred. It is the re<ll nature and quality of
~he payment and not the quantum or the manner of the payment
which would prove dedsive. If the object of making the payment
is to. acquire a capital asset, the payment would partake of the
.character of a capital payment even though it is made not in
Jump sum but by instalments
over a period of time.
On the
contrnry, payment made in the course of and for the purpose of
parrying on bus irr~ss or trading activity would be revenue expen-
.diture even thouJ?h the pay.l11ent is of a large amount and has not
-~o be made periodically. As observed by this Court in the case of
Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
West Benga1(1), if the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing ·into existence an asset or advantaee for the enduring benefit
of the business it is properly attributable to capital and is of ·the
pature of capital enxpenditure. If on the other hand it is mad~
not for the purpose 9f bringing into existence any such asset or
advantage but for running the business or working it with a view
to produce the profits it is a revenue expenditure. If any such
asset or advantage for the en.durinj?; benefit of 1Jhe business is thus
-acquired or brought into existence.. it would be immaterial whether
the source of the payment was tlhe capital or the income of the
concern or whether the payment was made once and .for all or was
made periodically. The aim and obiect of the expenditure would
determine the character of the expenditure whether it is a capital
expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The source or the manner
of the payment would then be of no consequence. We may also
in this r.nnnt>r.tinn refer to 1'le follnwine: observations of this Court
in the case of P. H. Divecha (Deceased) and A ft er H;;.11 H;s
Legal ReTJresentntiv~.<: and Another v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, .Bombay City 1(2 ) .
-
(I) [1955] 27 T.T.R. 34 (on p. 45).
(2) [ 1963] 48 T.T.R . 222.
A
B
c
0
E
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
M. K. BROS. LTD. v. C.I.T. KANPUR (Khanna, !.)
1083
"It may also be stated as a general rule that the
fact that the amount involved was large or that it was
periodic in character have no decisive bearing upon
the matter. A payment may even be describe1 as "pay"
"remuneration", etc., but that does not determine its
qualify, though the name by which it has been called
may be relevant in det,ermining its true nature, because
this gives an indication of how the person who paid the
money and the person who received it viewed it in the
first. instance. The periodicity of the payment does
not make the payment a recurring income because periodicity may be the result of convenience and not necessarily the result of the establishment of a source expected to be productive over a certain period.
These
general principles have been settled firmly by this court
in a large number of cases."
Although the above observations were made in the context of
periodic receipts, they have a direct bearing even on cases relating to periodic payments.
Mr. Maheshwari lias referred to clause 13 of the indentur1
reproduced above and has contended that the appellant could
make no claim to the amount of Rs. 43,333 which had been rotained by BIC. ThiS fact, in our opinion, would make no material
difference so far as the true nature ofthat amount was concerned.
The amount was deducted by BIC in pursuance of the agreement
ente.red into by the appellant with BIC and Sharma & Co., according to which the appellant had to pay thRt amount in the form
of deduction out of its commission in consideration of being
appointed the sole selling agent of the Kanpur Cotton Mills. The
present is a case relating to the application of income to discharge
a liability incurred not in the course of running the business but
a liability undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling
agency right which was indisputably an asset of capital nature.
The appeRI consequently fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismisstd.