Accrual of income and deductibility of penalties turn on control over receipt, genuine services, and breach-linked damages

Extra sugar-price receipts did not accrue in the relevant year because the amount remained subject to an interim judicial order and the assessee had no dominion over it, so the right to receive had not crystallised. Commission paid to Bharat Vyopari Mandal was deductible because the agreement and payments were genuine, the sole selling agent was justified, and services were actually rendered, with no material to disturb the factual findings. Interest paid for delayed provident fund remittance was not allowable as business expenditure because such statutory damages were treated as a penalty for breach of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extra amount realised on enhanced sugar price had accrued in the relevant assessment year; (ii) Whether the commission paid to Bharat Vyopari Mandal was deductible; (iii) Whether interest paid on delayed provident fund payment was allowable as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether the extra amount realised on enhanced sugar price had accrued in the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: The amount was subject to an interim judicial order and could be dealt with only in accordance with the final order of the High Court. The assessee had no control over the amount during the relevant period, so the right to receive it had not crystallised as income in that year.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the commission paid to Bharat Vyopari Mandal was deductible.

Analysis: The genuineness of the agreement and the payments was not in doubt, and the Tribunal had found that appointment of the sole selling agent was justified and that services had in fact been rendered. No material was shown to displace those findings of fact.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest paid on delayed provident fund payment was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Damages for delayed payment under the provident fund law were treated as a penalty for infraction of law and therefore did not qualify as deductible business expenditure.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly for the assessee and partly for the Revenue, with the first two questions decided for the assessee and the third question decided for the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Income does not accrue where receipt remains subject to a controlling judicial order and the assessee lacks dominion over the amount; further, statutory damages or penalties for breach of law are not allowable as business expenditure.

---