- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Annamalais Timber Trust And Co. v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras.
Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion (Delivered by Rajagopalan, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
This reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act asked whether the apportionment of profits made by the Tribunal between British India and Cochin State was justified.
The Tribunal had found: (1) the assessee entered into the contract with the Government of India in British India; (2) all the other trading operations of the assessee in the relevant years were undertaken only within Cochin State; and (3) all the profits were realised and received by the assessee in Cochin State (outside British India). The Tribunal applied section 42 and apportioned 50% of the assessee's share of the contract profits to British India for taxation.
Annexure "A" to the statement of the case was treated as evidence of the contract. The assessee disputed the Tribunal's finding that the contract was concluded at Delhi (British India), arguing Annexure "A" was only a final offer addressed to the assessee at Cochin and that acceptance at Cochin would make Cochin the place of contract. The reference required the court to answer whether the Tribunal's apportionment was justified and, if so, whether the figure of 50% was justified.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was justification for the apportionment made by the Tribunal of the profits between British India and Cochin State?
- Whether section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act applied in the circumstances of this case (i.e., whether the contract or trading operation should be regarded as deeming profits to have accrued within the taxable territories)?
- If section 42 applies, what proportion of the assessee's share of profits should properly be apportioned to the trading operation carried out in British India (whether the Tribunal's 50% attribution was justified)?
Arguments of the Parties
Assessee's Arguments
- Annexure "A" was, in substance, merely a final offer from the Government addressed to the assessee at Cochin; acceptance (if any) occurred at Cochin and therefore the contract was concluded at Cochin, not in British India.
- Relied on Rajkumar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax to the effect that the question where a contract was concluded is a question of law in section 66 proceedings (so the assessee sought to challenge the Tribunal's factual finding on place of contract).
- Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that not more than 5% of the profits should be attributed to the trading operation carried out in British India (i.e., negotiation and conclusion of the contract).
Department's Arguments
- The Department accepted (or the Tribunal found) that the profits of the contract accrued in Cochin, but argued that apportionment might be necessary and relied on authorities (including Anglo-French Textile) to show apportionment can arise independently of section 42.
- The Department relied on the view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rodriguez and Co. (Satyanarayana Rao, J.) that the contract itself should be regarded as a source of profit; because the contract was obtained in British India, it should fall within the scope of section 42(1).
- The Department supported the Tribunal's apportionment (which had attributed 50% of the assessee's share to the operation in British India).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rajkumar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 I.T.R. 184 | That the question where a contract was concluded would be a question of law for the court to determine in proceedings under section 66 of the Act. | The assessee relied on it to argue the place of contract should be re-examined; the court observed that, absent further investigation of facts, it could not reopen the Tribunal's finding of fact as to the place of contract and therefore proceeded on the Tribunal's finding that the contract was concluded in British India. |
| Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. [1950] 18 I.T.R. 333 | Principles indicating that the place where a contract was entered into may be immaterial to deciding where the profits of the contract accrued or arose. | The court treated these principles as settled and used them to support the Tribunal's finding that the profits accrued in Cochin where operations were carried out and payments received. |
| Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mysore Engineering Co. A.I.R. 1953 Mysore 73 | Followed the principles in Anamallais Timber Trust regarding accrual/arising of profits. | Cited as a supporting high court decision that followed the Anamallais principles; used to reinforce the proposition that profits accrued where operations and receipts occurred (Cochin). |
| Rupajee Ratnachand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 I.T.R. 282 | Followed the principles on where profits accrue. | Adduced as another high court authority consistent with the view that profits accrue where operations and receipts take place. |
| Bhopal Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 29 I.T.R. 171 | Followed the same line on accrual of profits and relevance of location of operations. | Used to show consistent judicial approach that the accrual of profits depends on operations/receipts rather than merely where a contract was made. |
| Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 25 I.T.R. 27 | Explained that apportionment of profits may arise independent of section 42 and articulated that only well-defined business activities/operations attract section 42(3) apportionment — casual/isolated activities ordinarily do not. | The court relied on the quoted observations to adopt the test of "well defined business operation" and applied that test to hold that negotiating and concluding the contract constituted one of the assessee's trading operations. |
| Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. [1950] 18 I.T.R. 472 | Earlier Supreme Court decision whose scope was explained in Anglo-French Textile; relates to principles on apportionment and taxable source. | Anglo-French was read as explaining the scope of Ahmedbhai Umarbhai; the court used these authorities together in framing the section 42 analysis. |
| Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal B. Mehta (Privy Council) | Observed that place of formation of a contract is not determinative in all cases; other matters (such as acts done under the contract) may be relevant. | The court invoked the passage to emphasize that formation of contract need not prevail over other factors and to support the view that acts under the contract (i.e., operations in Cochin) matter in deciding accrual and apportionment issues. |
| Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rodriguez and Co. (Satyanarayana Rao, J.) | Observed that the contract itself may be viewed as a source of profit, which could bring the contract within the scope of section 42(1) if it is located within taxable territories. | The Department relied on this view; the court noted the reliance but preferred to rest its decision on the contract being one of the assessee's essential trading operations (bringing the matter within section 42(1)), rather than adopting Rodriguez as the sole basis. |
| Royal Talkie Distributors, Madurai v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (unreported) | Expressed the principle that apportionment of profits should not be arbitrary but should be on a rational basis. | The court cited this unreported decision to support the proposition that apportionment must be rationally based and that arbitrary percentages without explanation are impermissible. |
| Erichsen v. Last (as quoted via Lord Esher) | Used in a cited passage to caution against laying down rules of general application in complex foreign transactions. | Adduced in the Chunilal B. Mehta quotation to underline judicial caution about general propositions and to justify a fact-specific approach in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court set out the Tribunal's material findings and proceeded through a sequence of legal determinations, applying authorities and statutory provisions strictly on the facts before it:
- Place of contract: The court noted the assessee's contention that Annexure "A" was only a final offer addressed to Cochin and that acceptance (if at Cochin) would make Cochin the place of contract. The court observed that Rajkumar Mills establishes that place of contract is a question of law in section 66 proceedings; however, absent further factual investigation it was not appropriate at this stage to reopen the Tribunal's factual finding that the contract was negotiated and concluded in British India. The court therefore proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal was not in error on this factual point.
- Accrual of profits: The court accepted the settled proposition (supported by Anamallais and subsequent high court decisions) that the place where a contract was entered into is immaterial to deciding where the profits of the contract accrued if the operations and receipts occurred elsewhere. Applying that principle, the Tribunal correctly held that the profits accrued wholly in Cochin where the operations under the contract were performed and payments made.
- Scope of section 42: The court emphasized that section 42 applies when profits are deemed to have accrued within the taxable territories (i.e., when a relevant source or operation is regarded as located in taxable territories), and that apportionment independent of section 42 might be required in other circumstances (as explained in Anglo-French). The critical question thus became whether section 42(1) applied here.
- Whether the negotiation/conclusion of the contract is an "operation": Relying on Anglo-French (which requires that to attract section 42(3) an activity must be a well-defined business operation), the court examined whether the negotiation and conclusion of the contract constituted such an operation. The court concluded that, on the facts, negotiation and conclusion of the contract were one of the assessee's trading operations. The court also invoked Chunilal B. Mehta to underline that formation of the contract is one factor among others and does not automatically control, but in the present case the contract formation did amount to an essential trading operation.
- Choosing the basis for section 42(1): Although the Department sought to treat the contract simply as the source of profit (relying on Rodriguez), the court preferred to rest its decision on the contract evidenced by Annexure "A" being one of the assessee's essential trading operations — which brings the situation within the scope of section 42(1) and thereby engages section 42(3) for apportionment.
-
Appropriate apportionment percentage: The court then considered whether the Tribunal's apportionment of 50% to the operation carried on in British India (negotiation and conclusion of the contract) was justified. The court noted:
- The contract had special features: considerable negotiations including tripartite conferences in Delhi; special rights and obligations for the assessee; close collaboration with the Government of India; and the profit entitlement of ten percent of cost to be shared with another corporation which provided supervisory personnel.
- Despite these features, the court held that the share attributable to the British India operation should be more than nominal but should not exceed ten percent, citing the analogy of Anglo-French where ten percent had been considered reasonable in somewhat different circumstances (purchase of raw materials in taxable territories while other operations were outside).
- The court also relied on the principle (from Royal Talkie Distributors) that apportionment must be rational and not arbitrary, and noted that the Tribunal had not explained how it arrived at 50% either in the order of appeal or the statement of the case.
- Costs and final procedural disposition: Because neither side wholly succeeded, the court ordered no costs in relation to the reference.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court answered the reference by holding that there was justification for apportionment under section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, but that there was no justification for the Tribunal's attribution of 50% of the assessee's share of the profits to the trading operation carried out in British India. Instead, ten per cent of the assessee's share of the profits should be attributed to the trading operations carried out in British India.
Implications:
- Direct effect on parties: The Tribunal's apportionment of 50% is reduced to an apportionment of 10% of the assessee's share to the operation in British India; the remainder of the profits are to be treated as arising/realised in Cochin State and outside British India for the purposes of taxation as described in the opinion.
- Costs: No order as to costs was made because neither party wholly succeeded on the reference.
- Precedential scope: The court expressly limited its observations to the facts of this contract and emphasised it was not laying down a rule of general application for all contracts executed partly within and partly outside taxable territories. The decision rests on the specific factual features and the court's application of section 42 principles; it does not purport to create a broad new legal principle beyond those applied.
Reference answered accordingly.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Rajagopalan, J.:— The question referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act was:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is justification for the apportionment made by the Tribunal of the profits between British India and Cochin State?”
2. The findings of the Tribunal, with reference to which we have to answer this question, lie within a comparatively brief compass: (1) it was within British India that the assessee entered into the contract with the Government of India; (2) all the other trading operations of the assessee in all the relevant years were undertaken only within Cochin State; and (3) all the profits were realised and received by the assessee in Cochin State, that is, outside British India. The Tribunal held that, though the profits of the contract business actually accrued to the assessee wholly outside British India, the provisions of section 42 of the Act applied, and that the assessee was liable to be taxed on 50 per cent. of his share of the profits of that contract.
3. Annexure “A” to the statement of the case was taken as evidence of the contract which the assessee entered into with the Government of India. The learned counsel for the assessee urged that the finding of the Tribunal, that the assessee and the Government of India entered into that contract at Delhi, was erroneous, as annexure “A” was only in the nature of a final offer from the Government which was addressed to the assessee at his place of business in Cochin. The further contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was that, if that offer had been accepted only at Cochin, that would have been the place where the parties entered into the contract. The learned counsel relied on Rajkumar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 I.T.R 184., where the Supreme Court laid down that the question where a contract was concluded would be a question of law for the court to determine in proceedings under section 66 of the Act. Of course, if all the findings of fact were available, what should be the inference to be drawn from those facts would be a question of law. In this case, however, without a further investigation of facts we cannot reopen the question concluded by the finding of the Tribunal, where was the contract concluded. Therefore, it is not wholly a question of law that the counsel for the assessee could be allowed to raise at this stage. The parties proceeded all along on the basis that the contract was concluded within British India, and it is not open to the assessee to contend that the place of contract itself is a matter for investigation at this stage. Even in paragraph 14 of annexure “A” what the assessee was asked to do was to confirm the contents of that letter, which purported to set out what the parties had agreed upon at Delhi. We shall, therefore, proceed on the basis, that the Tribunal was not in error when it held that the assessee had negotiated and concluded the contract in British India.
4. It should be taken as well settled now that where the contract was entered into is really immaterial in cases of this kind to decide where the profits of the contract accrued or arose: see Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras…Applicant; v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd.… [1950] 18 I.T.R 333., the principles laid down in which were followed by the Mysore High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mysore Engineering Co. A.I.R 1953 Mysore 73., by the Andhra High Court in Rupajee Ratnachand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 I.T.R 282., by the Nagpur High Court in Bhopal Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 29 I.T.R 171.. The Tribunal rightly held that the profits of the assessee accrued wholly in Cochin where all the operations under that contract were carried out by the assessee, and where he was paid all that was due to him under that contract. The learned counsel for the Department referred us to the observations of the Supreme Court in Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 25 I.T.R 27., where the learned judges explained the scope of their earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. [1950] 18 I.T.R 472., that the need for apportionment of profits might arise independent of section 42. Whether, if the profits accrued or arose within British India, which constituted the taxable territories, those profits should be apportioned independent of section 42 of the Act does not arise for consideration in this case. Section 42 of the Act, it should be taken as well settled now, applies only if the profits are deemed to have accrued or arisen within the taxable territories, and not when they actually accrued or arose within them.
5. So the real question for determination is whether section 42(1) of the Act applies. If it does, there has to be an apportionment under section 42(3).
6. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to the observation of the Supreme Court in Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax:
“we wish to point out that it is not every business activity of a manufacturer that comes within the expression ‘operation’ to which the provisions of section 42(3) are attracted. Those provisions have no application unless according to the known and accepted business notions and usages the particular activity is regarded as a well defined business operation. Activities which are not well defined, or are of a casual or isolated character would not ordinarily fall within the ambit of this rule. Distribution of profits on different business operations or activities ought only to be made for sufficient and cogent reasons……”
7. The learned judges, however, added that the observations made in that judgment were limited to the facts and circumstances of that case. Even applying that test, it should be obvious that negotiations and concluding the contract in question in this case was one of the trading operations of the assessee. We shall advert a little later to the special features of that contract. In the oft-quoted passage in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal B. Mehta their Lordships of the Privy Council observed:
“Their Lordships are not laying down any rule of general application to all classes of foreign transactions, or even with respect to the sale of goods. To do so would be nearly impossible and wholly unwise— to use the language of Lord Esher in Erichsen v. Last. They are not saying that the place of formation of the contract prevails against everything else. In some circumstances it may be so, but other matters— acts done under the contract, for example—cannot be ruled out a priori.”
8. As we said, that in the circumstances of this case the negotiation and conclusion of the contract constituted one of the trading operations of the assessee can admit of no doubt.
9. The learned counsel for the Department relied on the observations of Satyanarayana Rao, J., in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rodriguez and Co. and contended that the contract itself should be viewed as a source of profit that the assessee made, and as that source lay within British India, it came within the scope of section 42(1) of the Act. We would, however, preter to rest our decision in this case on the basis that the contract the assessee obtained evidenced by annexure “A” was one of his essential trading operations. That is sufficient to bring it within the scope of section 42(1) of the Act, and that, in its turn, in the circumstances of this case, attracts the application of section 42(3).
10. The question that remains for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in apportioning 50 per cent. of the assessee's share of the profits to the only trading operation of his that took place within British India. The claim of the assessee before the Tribunal was that not more than 5 per cent. should be attributed to the trading operation carried out within British India, that is, the conclusion of the contract. The contract that the assessee obtained had special features. We should like to guard ourselves at this stage by emphasising that all our observations are only with reference to the contract before us. We are not to be understood as laying down as a proposition of law of general application to all cases where a contract for execution of works takes place within the taxable territories and all the other operations take place out???de the taxable territories. The contract that the assessee obtained was obviously the subject-matter of considerable negotiations, including tripartite conferences at Delhi, in which the assessee, a representative of the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation and the Government of India participated. The assessee was entitled to some special rights under the contract and the contract provided for close collaboration between the assessee and the Government of India at all stages in the work to be carried out under the contract within the State of Cochin. The assessee was entitled to ten per cent. of the cost of production as his profits, which, of course, it had to share with the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, which provided trained personnel to supervise the execution of the works. Taking the special features of the contract into consideration, we are of opinion that a share of the assessee's profits should be attributed to that trading operation, and that the share to be so attributed should be something more than nominal. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that in Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ten per cent. was considered reasonable, where the trading operations consisted of purchase of raw materials within the taxable territories, while the rest of the trading operations were in Pondicherry outside the taxable territories. We can see considerable force in his contention, that there will be no justification for allowing a higher percentage than ten per cent. in this case, where the only trading operation within British India was to negotiate and conclude the contract. In the unreported decision in Royal Talkie Distributors, Madurai v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, to which one of us was a party, this court pointed out that the apportionment of profits should not be arbitrary but should be on a rational basis. In this case the Tribunal fixed 50 per cent. as the share attributable to the trading operation carried out in British India, but on what basis the Tribunal considered 50 per cent. was a fair share, the Tribunal did not explain either in the order of appeal or in the statement of the case. As we said, in the circumstances of this case, where the contract alone is to be taken as having been concluded in British India, a contract which no doubt had special features, we think that the share to be attributed to that should not be in excess of ten per cent.
11. Our answer to the question is that there was justification for apportionment under section 42(3) of the Act, but there was no justification for apportioning 50 per cent. to the operation carried out in British India; there was justification only for apportioning ten per cent. of the assessee's share of the profits to the trading operations he carried out in British India.
12. As neither side has wholly succeeded there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
13. Reference answered accordingly.
Alert