S C CAMBATTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1960-11-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 30,1960

S.C.CAMBATTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DANIELL V. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [REFERRED 8]
FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION V. WILLIAMSON [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

AUSTIN NICHOLS and CO VS. ARVIND BEHL [LAWS(DLH)-2005-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
AUSTIN NICHOLS AND CO VS. ARVIND BEHL DIRECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUWAN NATH MEHROTRA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1988-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX W B III VS. CHUNILAL PRABHUDAS AND CO DEFUNCT FIRM [LAWS(CAL)-1969-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. PHIPSON AND COMPANY PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1974-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX VS. RAMGOPAL GANPATRAI AND SONS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1971-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
CEPT VS. RAMGOPAL GANPATRAI AND SONS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1971-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
AGROMORE P LIMITED VS. CHEMBOND CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2001-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHALATA RAGHUNATH JOSHI VS. LAXMAN HARI MULIK [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
UAS PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD VS. AJANTHA PHARMA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-186] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAILAL VS. KANTILAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY VS. SHANTA BEN MANI LAL PATEL [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR PRASAD PODDAR VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY [LAWS(PAT)-1976-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
BIKRAMJIT SINGH VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY [LAWS(P&H)-2002-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
KAPUR AIR PRODUCTS VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1987-4-20] [REFERRED]
NALINI V SARAF VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY [LAWS(KER)-2003-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. BLUE HILL LOGISTICS PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-15] [FOLLOWED ON]
BLUE HILL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LTD VS. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2011-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
BEIERSDORF A.G. VS. AJAY SUKHWANI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-184] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-1993-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AZAM VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-348] [REFERRED TO]
ARVINDER SINGH VS. LAL PATHLABS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-250] [REFERRED TO]
A. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR VS. A. KALIAPPA CHETTIAR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1963-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. MITTERSAIN RUPCHAND AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-1994-2-68] [REFERRED]
RAMJI LAL DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PWD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-8-128] [REFERRED]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. MITTERSAIN RUPCHAND [LAWS(BOM)-1998-2-154] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. ASSOCIATED ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (BANGALORE) PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-306] [REFERRED]
S.S. KRISHNA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, SWARGA MADAM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE VS. SUSHEELA KRISHNA PAI, W/O. LATE KRISHNA PAI, HOUSE NO. 18/431, SAMOOHAM ROAD, KASABA AMSOM, KOZHIKODE [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-201] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HIDAYATULLAH, - (1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)THESE are two appeals, with special leave, against an order of the High court of Bombay rejecting a petition under s. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the order of the Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Bombay, in respect of which the petition to the High court was made. Messrs. S. C. Cambatta and Co. (Private) Ltd., Bombay, have filed these appeals, and the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay, is the respondent.
We are concerned in these appeals with three chargeable accounting periods, each ending respectively on December 31, beginning with the year, 1943 and ending with the year, 1945.

The appellants carry on various businesses, and one such business was the running of a theatre and restaurant, called the Eros Theatre and Restaurant. In October, 1943, a subsidiary Company called the Eros Theatre and Restaurant, Ltd. was formed. The paid up capital of the subsidiary Company was Rs. 7,91,100.00 divided into 7,911 shares of Rs. 100.00 each. 7,901 shares were allotted to the appellant Company as consideration for assets, goodwill, stock-in trade and book debts which were taken over by the subsidiary Company, and the remaining 10 shares were held by the Cambatta family. The assets which were transferred were as follows: JUDGEMENT_1010_AIR(SC)_1961Html1.htm They together with the capital reserve of Rs. 6,21,032.00 made up the amount of Rs. 7,90,100.00. In the books of the subsidiary Company, the share capital account was shown separately as follows: JUDGEMENT_1010_AIR(SC)_1961Html2.htm It will thus appear that goodwill was not shown separately in the appellants' account books, but only in the accounts of the subsidiary Company. In working out the capital of the two Companies for excess profits tax, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 was claimed as goodwill as part of the capital of the subsidiary Company. Both the Department as well as the tribunal held that s. 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act applied; and the goodwill was not taken into account in working out the capital. The tribunal declined to state a case, but the High court directed that a reference be made on two questions, which were framed as follows: '(1) Whether on the facts of the case, the Appellate tribunal was right in applying section 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act? (2)..Whether in the computation of the capital employed in the business of the assessee, the tribunal erred in....not including the value of the goodwill or any 'portion thereof?'

The High court by its judgment and order answered the first question in the negative and the second, in the affirmative. It held that sub-s. (5) and not sub-s. (3) of s. 8 of the Excess Profits Tax Act was applicable. It, therefore, held that 'the tribunal should have allowed for the value of the goodwill whatever it thought was reasonable at the date of the transfer.'

When the matter went before the tribunal again, three affidavits and a valuation report by a firm of architects were filed. The goodwill, according to the report of the architects, amounted to Rs. 25 lakhs. It may be mentioned here that the subsidiary Company was using the premises under a lease granted on 20/11/1944, for three years beginning from 1/04/1944, on a rental of Rs. 9,500.00 per month. The tribunal came to the conclusion that no goodwill had been acquired by the business of the Theatre as such, and that whatever goodwill there was, related to the site and building itself. They then proceeded to consider what value should be set upon the goodwill on the date of the transfer of the subsidiary Company as directed by the High court. They took into account certain factors in reaching their conclusions. They first considered the earning capacity of the business, and held that prior to 1942 the business had not made profits, and that the name of Eros Theatre and Restaurant thus by itself had no goodwill at all. They, therefore, considered that the only goodwill which had been acquired attached to the lease, which the trustees had given to the Eros ;Theatre and Restaurant Ltd., and computing the goodwill as the value of the lease to the subsidiary Company, they felt that Rs. 2 lakhs was a liberal estimate of the value of the goodwill in the hands of Eros Theatre and Restaurant, Ltd. at the material time.

(3.)PETITIONS under ss. 66(1) and 66(2) read with a. 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were respectively rejected by the tribunal and the High court; but the appellants obtained special leave from this court, and filed these appeals.
In our opinion, a question of law did arise in the case whether the goodwill of the Eros Theatre and' Restaurant, Ltd., was calculated in accordance with law. The tribunal seems to have taken into account only the value of the leasehold of the site to the subsidiary Company, and rejected other considerations which go to make up the goodwill of a business. No doubt, in Cruttwell v. Lye(1), Lord Eldon, L. C. observed that goodwill was 'nothing more than the probability that the old customers would resort to the old place'. The description given by Lord Eldon has been considered always to be exceedingly narrow. The matter has to be considered from the nature of the business, because the goodwill of a public inn and the goodwill of a huge departmental stores cannot be calculated on identical principles. The matter has been considered in two cases by the House of Lords. The first case is Trego v. Hunt (2), where all the definitions previously given were considered, and Lord Macnaghten observed that goodwill is 'the whole advantage, whatever it may be of the reputation and connection of the firm, which may have been built up by years of honest work or gained by lavish expenditure of money'. In a subsequent case reported in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Muller and Co. s. Margarin, Ltd. (3), Lord Macnaghten at pp. 223 and 224 made the following observations:. 'What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good-name, reputation, and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.................. If there is one attribute common to all cases of goodwill in it is the attribute of locality. For goodwill has no independent existence. It cannot subsist by itself. 'It must be attached to a business. Destroy the business, and the goodwill perishes with it, though elements remain which may perhaps be gathered up and be revived again'.

These two cases and others were considered in two 'Australian cases. The first is Daniell v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1), where, Knox, C. J. observed: 'My opinion is that while it cannot be said to be absolutely and necessarily inseparable from the premises or to have no separate value, prima facie at any rate it may be treated as attached to the premises and whatever its value may be, should be treated as an enhancement of the value of the premises'. In the second case reported in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Williamson (2), Rich, J., observed at p. 564 as follows: 'Hence to determine the nature of the goodwill in any given case, it is necessary to consider the type of business and the type of customer which such a business is inherently likely to attract as well as the surrounding circumstances............ The goodwill of a business is a composite thing referable in part to its locality, in part to the way in which it is conducted and the personality of those who conduct it, and in part to the likelihood of competition, many customers being no doubt actuated by mixed motives in conferring their custom'. In Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn., 'goodwill' is defined thus: 'The goodwill of a business is the benefit which arises from its having been carried on for some time in a particular house, or by a particular person or firm, or from the use of a particular trade mark or trade name'

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.