COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DIPAK CORPORATION PVT LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1975-9-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 25,1975

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Appellant
VERSUS
DIPAK CORPORATION PVT. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Deb, J. - (1.) This reference, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1964-65, The assessee-company was floated on October 27, 1960, with the object of acquiring the managing agency of India Forge & Drop Stampings Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the managed company ". The managed company was floated on June 27, 1960. One Sri Baldev Raj was appointed by the managed company as an employee on a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month with effect from 1st July, 1960. The said Baldev Raj was a relation of the two directors of the assessee-company. Hence, when the assessee-company took over the managing agency of the managed company, the said Baldev Raj became an associate within the meaning of that expression used in Section 360 of the Companies Act. The managed company, however, obtained permission from the Central Government for payment of remuneration of Baldev Raj for the years 1961 and 1962. The managed company, however, failed to secure the sanction of the Central Government for the continuation of the employment of Baldev Raj with effect from 22nd February, 1963, and, therefore, the managed company withdrew a resolution from its extraordinary general meeting regarding the continuation of his appointment.
(2.) The assessee-company, however, on February 25, 1964, passed a special resolution in its extraordinary general meeting appointing Baldev Raj as its employee from 27th February, 1963, to 31st October, 1963. In the said meeting another resolution was passed by the assessee-company to pay the managed company the sums that were payable by Baldev Raj to the managed company which were paid to him by the managed company in contravention of Section 360 of the Companies Act, 1956, In terms of that resolution, the assessee-company paid Rs. 16,482 to the managed company being the sum payable by Baldev Raj to the managed company. The assessee-company has also paid Rs. 4,000 to Baldev Raj as his salary for working under the assessee-company for the subsequent period.
(3.) The Income-tax Officer has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of this total sum of Rs. 20,482 on the ground that since the managed company has paid Rs. 16,482 to Baldev Raj in contravention of Section 360 of the Companies Act, 1956, the said sums paid by the assessee-company to the managed company was an illegal expenditure. The Income-tax Officer was also of the opinion that Rs. 4,000 paid to Baldev Raj by the assessee-company was in contravention of Section 360 of the Companies Act and, therefore, this payment was also an illegal payment.;


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