TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on remuneration for directors not for business purposes</h1> <h3>Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, UP. (No. 1)</h3> Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, UP. (No. 1) - [1967] 63 ITR 57 Issues:1. Whether the payment of remuneration to the directors is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax ActRs.Analysis:The appellant-company, managed by a firm of managing agents, paid additional remuneration to its directors following an amendment to the articles of association. The company claimed this remuneration as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, but the Income-tax authorities disallowed the claim. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed this decision, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court ruled against the appellant, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.The appellant contended that the payment to directors was solely for the benefit of the company and should be deductible under section 10(2)(xv). However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer has the discretion to determine if the payment was wholly and exclusively for the business, despite the existence of an agreement and actual payment. The court cited precedents to support the view that the decision on deductibility is a matter of law, and the Income-tax Officer can consider all relevant factors in making this determination.The Appellate Tribunal found that the payment of commission to directors was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It noted that the directors did not provide special services justifying the extra remuneration and that most work was done by the managing agents. Additionally, the abnormal increase in profits was attributed to external factors, not the directors' efforts. The High Court concurred with this view, denying the appellant's claim for deduction under section 10(2)(xv).The appellant's argument about industry practice in remunerating directors was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence inadequate to establish the alleged practice, leading to the dismissal of this argument. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal flaws in the High Court's ruling. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 