Recurring agency compensation as revenue expenditure, while statutory surplus payment is not diversion at source

Compensation paid to chief agents and special agents on termination of agency contracts under the Life Insurance Corporation Act was treated as revenue expenditure because it discharged a recurring business liability and did not create any enduring asset or advantage; the deduction was allowed. The statutory amount payable out of surplus to the Central Government was held not to be diverted at source by an overriding title, because the liability arose only after the actuarial surplus had accrued under the special insurance computation scheme, so the amount remained part of the assessee's income and was not deductible from the taxable surplus.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether compensation paid to chief agents and special agents under section 36 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was revenue expenditure deductible in computing taxable income. (ii) Whether the portion of surplus statutorily payable to the Central Government under section 28 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was diverted at source by an overriding title and therefore not includible in the assessee's income.

Issue (i): Whether compensation paid to chief agents and special agents under section 36 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was revenue expenditure deductible in computing taxable income.

Analysis: The statutory vesting of the insurance business in the Corporation also brought in the liabilities attached to the existing agency arrangements, but section 36 terminated those contracts and substituted compensation in place of recurring commission obligations. The payment was made to discharge an ongoing business liability and to avoid future recurring payments. The character of the payment depended on its purpose and effect, not on whether it was made in a lump sum or in instalments. No enduring asset or income-yielding advantage was acquired by such payment.

Conclusion: The compensation paid to the chief agents and special agents was revenue expenditure and was deductible; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the portion of surplus statutorily payable to the Central Government under section 28 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was diverted at source by an overriding title and therefore not includible in the assessee's income.

Analysis: The computation of income from life insurance business is governed by the special and artificial scheme under section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the First Schedule, which starts from the actuarial surplus. Section 28 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 operates only after the surplus is ascertained and provides for its allocation and application, including payment of the residue to the Central Government. The statutory obligation to pay the amount arises after the surplus reaches the Corporation and therefore does not create a diversion of income at source or an overriding charge.

Conclusion: The amount payable to the Central Government under section 28 was not diverted by an overriding title and was not deductible from the actuarial surplus; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in part for the assessee and in part against the assessee, with the agency compensation allowed as a deductible revenue outgoing and the statutory payment to the Central Government held not to reduce the taxable surplus.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made to terminate a recurring business liability is revenue expenditure if it does not bring into existence an enduring asset or advantage, whereas a statutory payment made after income has accrued is an application of income and not a diversion at source.

---