Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (12) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roup representing one family. The other group is represented by Lala Purshottam Das and L. Jugul Kishore, who are brothers. The aforesaid four persons were the only shareholders of a private limited company, M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mills company). This was, therefore, a family company. The aforesaid four persons had almost equal shareholdings of 25% each. In order to avoid friction between the two families of shareholders, it was agreed between them that the control and management of the mill company should be for a period of one year each by rotation. During the relevant assessment year of 1954-55, it was the turn of Lala Purshottam Das of the second group and he was the director in charge. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oshan Lal, claimed that a subsidy of Rs. 1,04,000 was lost as a result of Lala Purshottam Das's action in asking the Government to release stocks of sugar and threatened Lala Purshottam Das and L. Jugul Kishore that they would apply for the liquidation of the company. The latter, thereupon, it appears, agreed to make good the loss and entered into an agreement dated 29th March, 1954, with the members of the first group, i.e., the assessee, Lala Ram Sarup and his father, Lala Roshan Lal. The material portion of this agreement reads : "That a sum of Rs. 52,000 (rupees fifty-two thousand only) paid to the first party (Roshan Lal and Ram Sarup) by the second party (Purshottam Das and Jugul Kishore) on account of 50% loss of the total losses su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... words, the question is : Is it a capital or a revenue receipt ? The relevant provisions having a bearing on this question are section 4 and section 4(3)(vii) of the Act. The material portion of section 4 reads : "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from whatever source derived. This provision appears to be advisedly worded very widely and would enable almost everything to be swept into the net of taxation provided it has the quality of income, profits or gains. Undoubtedly, the sum of Rs. 26,000 was a gain and the source thereof, whether be it the company or the director-in-charge or a group of directors, would not be very material for purpo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appear to negative the assessee's claim that the payment of Rs. 26,000 was not a loss from business but something wholly unconnected with it and it was also of a casual and non-recurring nature. The agreement dated the 20th March, 1954, clearly talks of a "payment made" to the first party by the second party "on account of 50% loss of the total losses sustained in getting released a sugar quota of 850 tons from the Government of India. . . ." The sugar was the stock in trade of the mills company, of which the aforesaid four persons were the only directors, and it was, as already observed, a family company. It is also quite clear that the company was being treated by the shareholders as a family affair subject, of course, to the legal requir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first into the coffers of the company and then distributed as dividend or payment by the company to the shareholder. It is no doubt true that a company has a separate legal existence in law from its shareholders, but that does not mean that the director-in-charge of a private company cannot make good the loss resulting from his action outside the books of the company and compensate the other directors who may have suffered a loss thereby. It is quite clear, as already observed, that the four directors were treating the company as a family affair and were not really bothered by the technical or legal requirements of the Indian Companies Act. If the parties, be they shareholders of a company, want to settle their differences outside court or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates