1956 (12) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Payment to Mr. J. H. Phillips not deductible under Income-tax Act

The Court held that the payment of Rs. 40,000 to Mr. J. H. Phillips was not an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid to Mr. J. H. Phillips on his retirement was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Whether the payment constituted an expenditure of a capital nature.3. Whether the payment was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Admissibility of Deduction under Section 10(2)(xv)The primary issue was whether the Rs. 40,000 paid to Mr. J. H. Phillips on his retirement could be considered an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal had disallowed the claim, stating that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and was also capital in nature.Issue 2: Nature of Expenditure - Capital or RevenueThe Court examined whether the payment of Rs. 40,000 constituted an expenditure of a capital nature. It referred to the test laid down by Lord Cave in British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. v. Atherton [1926] AC 205: 'But when an expenditure is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bring into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital.' The Court concluded that the Rs. 40,000 did not bring into existence any asset for the enduring benefit of the business nor did it secure an advantage for the enduring benefit of its business. Therefore, it was not a capital expenditure.Issue 3: Wholly and Exclusively for Business PurposeThe Court then addressed whether the payment was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Court analyzed precedents such as Smith v. The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting [1914] 3 KB 674 and Hancock v. General Reversionary and Investment Co., Ltd. [1918] 7 Tax Cas. 358. In Smith's case, it was found that the gratuity was a habitual payment affecting the salary structure, thus considered a business expenditure. However, the Court noted that in this case, there was no evidence that Mr. Phillips had accepted a lower salary in anticipation of the gratuity, nor was there a precedent for such payments by the assessee-company.The Court emphasized that the payment was made in grateful recognition of past services, which had already been rendered. It was not designed to secure future services or act as an incentive for current or future employees. The Court also referenced Gunn's Commonwealth Income Tax Law & Practice, which states that a payment to an employee on retirement is deductible only if it can be established that the payment was in the future interests of the business. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the payment was made in the future interests of the business.The Court further discussed the principles from B.W. Noble Ltd. v. Mitchell [1926] 11 Tax Cas. 372 and W. Nevill & Co. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1955] 56 CLR 290, which dealt with payments to get rid of unwanted directors and were considered revenue expenses. However, these cases did not directly apply as they did not involve voluntary gratuity payments.The Tribunal had also noted that the payment was debited to the appropriation account, indicating it was an extraordinary payment, potentially of a capital nature. The Court clarified that while the entry in accounts is not conclusive, it was not relevant to the final decision.ConclusionThe Court concluded that the payment of Rs. 40,000 to Mr. Phillips did not satisfy the requirements of section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The payment was voluntary and in recognition of past services, with no evidence showing it was in the future interests of the business. The Court held that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee-company. Therefore, the question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.