The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal v. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Sinha J. It would, thus, appear that the rules relating to the

admission of members' Assistants, confer the benefit upon those members only-either individuals or firms-who are qualified according to the by-laws to have such Assistants, and who have paid admission fees and pay a monthly subscription in respect of each of them, besides thefr own dues, to the Company. The number of such Assistants has been sought by the by-laws to be limited upto a maximum of six, by imposing a progressively enhanced admission fee, apparently, with a view to discouraging the empToy-ment of a large crowd of such " Authorized Assis-tants". The by-laws also provide that" an authoriz-ed assistant shall not enter into any contracts on his own behalf and all contracts made by him shall be made in the name of the member employing him and such member shall be absolutely responsible for the due fulfilment of all such contracts and for all trans-actions entered into by the authorized assistant on his behalf." It is also contemplated by the by-laws that. tickets have to be issued to the Authorized Assistants, besides the members' tickets. The by-laws also contemplate that a member shall give to the prescribed Authority of the Company, an immediate notice in writing, of the termination of the em ploy-ment by him of any Authorized Assistant, and on such termination, the right of the Assistant to use the rooms of the Association, shall cease, and he shall not be at liberty to transact business in the name and on behalf of his employer. The by-laws also make provision for the supervision of the work of the Authorized Assistants to see that they function with-in the limits of their powers, and do not transact business on behalf of persons or firms other than 1959 I those employing • h · them. · ( . . .

Durmg t e accountmg year 1944-45 assessn;ient 1 lte Commissioner of Income-tax, year 1945-46), the Re-spondent Company received west Bengal from its members the sum of Rs. 60,750/- as entrance v. fees, and the sum of Rs. 15,687 /- as subscription in The Calcutta Stock respect of the Authorized Assistants. The Company fach~nge also received during the aforesaid year, a sum of Association Lid. Rs. 16,000/- as fees for putting the names of companies Sinha 1. on the Quotations List. Unless a particular com-pany's name is placed on the Quotations List, no deal-ings in respect of the shares of that company are permitted on the Stock Exchange. An application has to be made by a member to place on the Quota-tions List any company not already included in that List, and _on approval by the prescribed Authority of the Company, the name of the company thus propos-ed, is included in the List upon payment of a certain fee. The companies themselves cannot apply to the Assoqiation for such enlistment. The application has to be made by a member, and has to be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1,000/-, and it is only after the neces-sary scrutiny and investigation into the affairs of the proposed company have been made, that the enlist-ment applied for is granted. That is another source of income to the Respondent Company. It is no more necessary to refer to another item of income, which was admitted, during the course of the assessment proceedings in their appellate stage, to be liable to the payment of tax. We are, thus, concerned in the present controversy with the aforesaid sums of Rs. 60,750/-, Rs. 15,687/- and Rs. 16,000/-which were held by the Income-tax Officer, by his order dated March 27, 1946, to be liable to income-tax. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention raised on behalf of the assessee Company that the Authorized Assistants aforesaid were themselves members of the Company, and that therefore, the moneys received from them were exempt from taxation. He also held that though the Respondent Company was a mutual Association, each one of the three items of income, referred to above, was remuneration definitely related

464 SUPREME OOUR'r REPORTS [1959] Supp. t959 to specific services performed, and was thus, charge- -. . able to tax within the meaning of s. 10(6) of the Act. Th C ommission" O !1 appea I , t h e A ppe JI ate A ssJStant · . C omm1ss10ner, · · b y of Income-tax, west Brngal his order dated June 30, 1947, considered the pomts

v. at great length, and came to the conclusion that the The Calcuua Stock authorized Assistants were not members or substitute

Exchange members. He held that the Authorized Assistants Association Ltd. were no more t h an representatives ' o f t h e rnem b ers

Sinha . who employ thJJm, and they transact business on their

1 behalf, and that the Association had framed rules and

by-laws, regulating the admission, supervision and discontinuance of such Authorized Assistants. For ~ coming to this conclusion, he relied upori the decision

of the Bombay High Court in the case of Native Share and Stock Brokers ' Association v. The Commissioner of Income-tax('). The case was then taken up in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismiss-ed the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the finding of the taxing authorities that the Authorized Assist-ants were not members of the Company within the meaning of the Articles of Association of the Com-pany, and that their position was analogous to that of the "authorised clerks in Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association at Bombay". In the course of its order, the Tribunal observed as follows:- " The provision made in the regulations of the company, by which a member can take advantage of sending his authorised assistants to the company for transacting the business in the member's name is nothing but giving extra facilities to the members. By controlling the institution of authorised assistants the company renders specific services to the members and in particular to the member whose assistants work for him. The amounts received by the company from these sources are clearly covered by the provisions of section 10(6) ".

At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal stated ·a case and referred the following questions of law to the High Court for its decision under s. 66(1) of the Act:- " (1) Whether on the facts of this case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Authorised Assistants were not members of the com-r959 parry and as , such d the amounts h of Rs. b 15,687 . ,· /- and Th c - .. 60,750/- receive from t em as su scnpt10ns and e ommissioner of Income-tax entrance fees respectively should be included in the West Bengal assessable income. v.

(2) Were these amounts received for specific servi-The Calcutta Strek ces performed by the Association or its members with-Exchange m · th e meaning • o f su b .sec t" 10n (6) o f sec t' 10n 10 o f th e Association _ Ltd. Indian Income-tax Act ? Sinha ].

(3) Whether the sums of Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 600/- were remuneration definitely related to specific services performed by the Association for its members within the meaning of sub-section (6) of section 10 ".

The reference was heard by a Di vision Bench consist-ing of Sir Trevor Harries, C. J., and Banerjee, J., of the Calcutta High Court. Before that Bench, certain concessions were made. It was conceded by Dr. Pal, who also appeared before that Bench, that the Autho-rised Assistants were not members of the Company.

It was also agreed at the bar, on behalf of both the parties, that the two sums of Rs. 60, 750 and 15,687 were not received from the Authorized Assistants, as suggested in the question formulated, and that it. was common ground that they were received from mem-bers of the Association in respect of their Authorized Assistants. Therefore, the High Court took the view that the questions framed by the Tribunal did not arise, and that the Tribunal bad proceeded on a wrong basis of facts. The High Court, therefore, re-cast the questions in these terms :-

" Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that

(a) the amounts of Rs. 15,687 / · and Rs. 60, 750/.

received from the members of the Association as sub-scriptions and entrance fees in respect of Authorized Assistants, and

(b) the amounts of Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 600/- received as fees for enlisting names of newly floated companies and for recognition of changes in the styles of firms respectively should be included in the assess-able income of the assessees ",

c959 The Tribunal was asked to re-state a case upon the The Commission" questions as re-cast, extracted above.

of Income-tax, Accordingly, the Tribunal drew up a fresh state-West Bengal ment of the case and re-submitted it to the High

v. Court. On this re-statement of the case, the matter was The Calcutta Stock heard by a Bench consisting of Chakra varti C. J. and

Exchange S ar k ar, J . T he H" 1g h C ourt considered · . the ' terms ' of Association Ltd.

s. 10(6) of the Act, and came to the conclusion that Sinha J. the case had not been brought within those terms.

The High Court, in the course of its opinion, observed that though the assessee is undoubtedly a trade associa-tion, it did not perform any specific services for its members for remuneration. It then examined in detail the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association v. The Com-missioner of Income-tax('), relied upon by the Depart-ment, and observed that the differences pointed out between the case in hand and the case decided by the Bombay High Court, were" not vital, though they are not immaterial ", but it was not prepared to take the same view of the facts of this case as had been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case referred to above, or by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chamber of Commerce, Alleppey (2). The High Court accepted the argument of Dr. Pal, which is also addressed to us, that the words "performing specific services for " were far stronger and more definite than the words "render service to", and that those words meant the actual doing of definite acts in the nature of services. The Court further observed that those words meant " execute certain definite tasks in the interests and for the benefit of the latter(that is to say, the members) under an arrangement of a direct char-acter". It further observed that the words "for remuneration" and " definitely related to those servi-ces " meant that " certain specific tasks must be per-formed or functions of a specific character must be discharged for payment and such payment is to be made to the association as wages for its labour in res-pect of those tasks or functions". In this connection, it may be add~d that the High Court also made the r959 following observations bearing on the construction of The Commissioner the crucial words of s. 10(6) :- of Income-tax,

"When section 10(6) speaks of a trade, professio-Wesl Bengal nal or other similar association performing specific v. services for its members for remuneration, it contem-The Calcutta Stock plates, I think, services in regard to matters outside Ass!7:~::g•Ltd the mutual dealings for which the Association was formed and for the transaction of which it exists as a Sinha f. mutual association. If performance of functions even in regard to matters within the objects of the associa-tion as a mutual association be performance of specific service within the meaning of the sub-section, dis-charge of no function can be outside it and everything done would be specific service performed. That, I do not think, is what the sub-section means and intends".

It is manifest that unless the assessee is brought with-in the terms of sub-s. (6) of s. 10, the three items of income coming into the hands of the Association, would not be chargeable to income-tax. That sub-section is in these terms :-

" (6) A trade, professional or similar association performing specific services for its members for remu-neration definitely related to those services shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to carry on business in respect of those services, and the profits and gains therefrom shall be liable to tax accordingly ".

It has to be observed at the outset that the perform-ing of the services of the description mentioned in that sub.section, may not, but for the words of that section, have amounted to carrying on business in respect of those services. The use of the word "deemed " shows that the legislature was deliberately using the fiction of treating something as business which otherwise it may not have been. It is also noteworthy that the sub-section is couched in rather emphatic terms. We have, therefore, to examine the terms of the sub-sec-tion to see whether the three sums of money in ques-tion, or any of them, are or is within the ambit of those terms. The words " performing specific ser-vices", in our opinion, mean, in the context, "confer-ring particular benefits " on the members. The word

468 SUPREME COURT ItEPORTS [1959] Supp. '959 " services " is a term of a very wide import, but in the C-. . context of s. 10 of the Act, its use excludes its theolo-Th ommimoncr gwa . l or ar t' 1st1c · usage. W'th 1 re1erence ,. to a t ra d e, pro-

of Income-tax west Bengal• fessional or similar association, the performing of

v. specific services must mean conferring on its members The Cafrutta StocA some tangible benefit which otherwise would not be

Exchange available to them as such, except for payment received Association Lid. by the association in respect of those services. The

Sinha 1. word" remuneration", though it includes "wages",

may mean payment, which, strictly speaking, may not be called "wages". It is a term of much wider import including " recompense '', "reward ", " payment ", etc. It, theref9re, appears to us that the learned Chief Justice was not entirely correct in equating "remune-ration " with "wages ". The sub-section further requires that the remuneration should be "definitely related" to the specific services. In other words, it should be showh that those services would not be available to the members or such of them as wish to avail themselves of those services, but for specific pay-ments charged by the association as a fee for perform-ing those services. After these observations bearing on the interpretation of the crucial words, we shall now examine each of the three items of income, sepa-rately, to determine the question whether they answer, or any of them answers, the description of "services " contemplated by the sub-section.

Firstly, the sum of Rs. 60,750 has been realised from such members as applied for and obtained permission of the Association to have the use of Authorized Assistants within the precincts of the Stock Exchange. There cannot be the least doubt that unless those members paid the prescribed entrance fees for one or more Authorized Assistants upto a maximum of six, they could not have the benefit thus conferred upon such members. Ordinarily, a member has to transact business in the precincts of the Association by himself or by his business partner if there is a firm; but if that member is a very busy person, and wishes to avail of the services of Authorized Assistants, he has to pay the the prescribed foe. A member of the Association, with the ad vantage of mutuality, so long as he transacts business within the precincts of the Association, by z959 himself or by his partner in the case of a firm, is not The c;.;;:ssioner required to pay any such entrance fee but only the of Income-tax, fee payable by every member as such. The entrance West Bengal fee, thus, is clearly chargeable only from such of the v. members as avail themselves of the benefit conferred The Calcutta Stock by the rules of . the Association , 'd in that h behalf. _ The f A E~cha 1 . ngeLtd entrance fi ee thus, a price pa1 fi or t e services o ssocia ion

IS, the Association in making suitable arrangements for Sinha f-an absentee member to transact business on his behalf and in his name by his representative or agent. The entrance fee in question, therefore, cannot but be ascribed . to the specific services rendered by the Association in respect of Authorized Assistants who thus become competent to transact business on behalf of their principal.

Coming next to the sum of Rs. 15,687 which was realised from the members by way of subscription in respect of their Authorized Assistants, it is clear that this sum consists of the contributions severally made by the members periodically, so as to continue to have the benefit conferred by the Association of having the use of their representative or agent even during their absence. There cannot be the least doubt that this is a very substantial benefit to those members who found it worth their while to engage the services of Autho-rized Assistants. A member is not obliged, as indi-cated above, to have such an Assistant, but the fact that he chooses to have such an Assistant on payment of the prescribed fee or subscription, itself, is proof positive that a businessman, who ordinarily thinks in terms of money, has found it worth-while to have the services of an Assistant by making an additional pay-ment to the Association by way of recompense for the benefit, thus conferred upon him.

Lastly, the sum of Rs. 16,000 represents fees received from members for allowing their application for enlist-ing the names of companies not already on the Quota-tions List, so that the shares and stocks of these companies, may be placed on the Stock Market. As already indicated, it is not the company concerned which has directly to pay this fee, but the fee has to

ry59 be paid by the member who initiates the proposal Th• c0-;;;,-;;;ssioner and, apparently, finds it worth his while to pay that of Income-tax, prescribed fee to the Association. He would not make w,,, Bengal the payment unless he found it worth his while to do

v. so. Apparently, such a member is interested in placing The Calc,,tta Stock the stocks of that company on the market. It cannot,

Exc,h~ngeLtd therefore, be denied that that sum of money is definite-ssocia ton . ly related to the specific . . services . performed by the

Sinha ;. Association, namely, to permit transactions in respect

of the shares of the company concerned, which services would not otherwise be available to the mem-bers as a body or to the individual member or mem-bers interested in that company.

In our opinion, therefore, each one of the three sources of income to the Association, accrues to it on account of its performing those specific services in accordance with its rules and by laws. Each one of the three distinct sources of revenue to the Associa-tion, is specifically attributable to the distinct services performed by the Association for its members or such of them as avail themselves of those benefits. And each one of those services is separately charged for, according to the rate or schedule laid down by the rules and by-laws of the Association. In our opinion, therefore, the requirements of sub-s. (6) of s. 10, have been fulfilled in the present case.

But we have yet to deal with the last argument accepted by the High Court, with reference to the terms of sub-s. (6) of s. 10, namely, that the services contemplated therein, have reference to "matters out-side the mutual dealings for which the Association was formed ". In the first place, there is no warrant for limiting the application of the words used by the legislature, in the way suggested. Secondly, the mutuality of the Association extends only to such benefits as accrue to every member on the payment made by him to the Association, but even if additional items of payment have to be made for additional services to be performed by the Association only for such of the members as avail themselves of those benefits, it cannot be said that the mutuality extends to those additional benefits also. It is, in our opinion, equally wrong to suggest that the services in question x959 should have been outside the objects of the Associa-Th c - .. t1on. · If t h e A sso01at10n · • ren d ers services · to sue h o f e ommissioner of Income-tax, its members as avail themselves of such services as west Bengal are not within the scope of the business activities of v. the Associiation, those benefits, if any, would not be The Calcutta Stock conferred by the Association as such, because the Exchange Association has to function within the scope of its Association Ltd. objects of incorporation. Sinha J.

Hence, on a true construction of the provisions of the sub-section in question, we have come to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of the present case, bring the three items of income of the Association within the taxing statute. In our opinion, the decision of the Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Stone, C. J., and Kania, J., (as he then was), in the case of Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1) is correct, and the facts of that case run very parallel to those of the case in hand, though there may be minor differences in the rules and by-laws of the Association then before the Bombay High Court. In that case, as in the present one, the rules of the Stock Brokers' Association (the Bombay Stock Exchange) contemplated a definite scheme for allowing members to employ authorized clerks and for the admission, conduct, control and supervision of those clerks, for the benefit primarily of the members who employed them. It was held by the High Court that the income received by the Association by way of fees in respect of those authorized clerks, was within the taxing statute and liable to income-tax. After examining in detail the provisions of the rules an<l the by-laws of the Association, Stone, C. J., made the following observations which are equally applicable to the rules and by-laws of the Association in the present case:-

" In my judgment these rules lay down a definite scheme and provide an organised arrangement, con-trolled and supervised by the Association for the bene-fit of its members. In my opinion the carrying

(1) [1946] 14 l.T.R. 628.

1959 of their scheme into effect is performing services for - its members by tire Association. No doubt the benefit The Commissioner o f t h e sc h eme wou Id re d oun d to t h e b ene fi t o: " a. II of Income-tax, west Bengal members since all would have the advantage of d1s01-

v. plined supervision exercised over the authorised clerks The Calcutta Stock and remisiers of the others. I do not think that

Exchange because the payment for the carrying of the scheme Association Ltd. is provided for only by members w h o avai I themsC' l ves

Sinha ;. of the use of the authorised clerks it makes any

difference."

Kania, J., (as he then was), in a separate but con-curring judgment, made the following very pertinent observations:- " A perusal of the rules referred to in the judg-ment of the learned Chief Justice shows that the institution of authorised clerks exists for the ben(lfits only of those who pay remuneration of Rs. 100 instead of going to the market and carrying on their business themselves. Individual members are permit-ted to work through an agent. For that the charge is made. The rules provide for the application and grant for such permission, registration of the authoris-ed clerks on the· individuals being recognised as clerks of particular members, supervision over the work of such clerks and particularly to prevent them from registering contracts either in their own name or in the name of another member; and a general supervision over their good behaviour is contem-plated . ......... . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "A question was raised as to whether these are specific services to be performed for particular members or whether the rules amount to performance of duties towards members in general. It is true that several of the services to be rendered may be helpful to the other members for their business. Taken as a whole I consider that as a performance of services by the Association for the benefit of members who pay the remuneration."

We have made these copious quotations from the judgment of the Bombay High Court, because, in our opinion, they truly apply the provisions of sub-s. (6) I959 of s. 10 to associations like the one before us.

The other case to which our attention was drawn, The Commissioner of Income-tax, is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chamber of Commerce, west Bengal Alleppey (1). The facts of that case are not similar to v. those of the case before us, but the ratio decidendi of The Calcutta Stock that case are relevant. That case referred to the Exchange Alleppey Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber inau-Association Ltd. gurated a produce section with the object of promot-Sinha J. ing the interests of merchants in general, and of those engaged in the produce trade, in particular, of acting as arbitrators and collecting and publishing informa-tion relating to the produce trade. Members were admitted to the produce section on payment of admission fees, monthly fees and contributions at certain prescribed rates. The question which was referred to the High Court, was whether the receipts by way of fees and contributions, could be chargeable under s. 10(6) of the Act, and it WMI answered in the affirmative.

Though cases in England, by way of precedent for the decision of the case in hand, have not been cited at the Bar, apparently because the scheme of the Income-tax law in England is different and the words of the statute are not in parti materia, yet there are some cases which throw some light on the controversy before us. For example, the case of The Carlisle and Silloth Golf Club v. Smith (Surveyor of Taxes) (2) related to a golf club which was not incorporated. It was admittedly a bona fide members' club, but under one of the terms of its lease, it had to admit non-members to play on its course on payment of " green fees " at certain prescribed rates. Those fees were paid by non-members. Receipts from those fees were entered in the general accounts of the Club, thus, showing an annual excess of receipts over expenditure of the Club as a whole. It was held by Hamilton, J., (as he then was), that the Club carried on a concern or business in respect of which it received remuneration which was assessable to income-tax. He pointed out that the

(1) [1955] 27 I.T.R. 535· (2) (1912) 6 Tax Cas. 48.

x959 receipts from non-members 'went to augment the funds -. . of the Club, and the revenue thus received was applied T~~ 1commissioner for the purposes of the Club-towards its general ex-

oj ncome-tax, pend1ture. . The case was taken up to the Court of West Bengal

v. Appeal, and the decision of that Court is reported in The Calcutta Stockthe same Volume at p. 198. The Court of appeal

E':c~ange affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal.

Asso"ation Ltd. The Judgment of the King's Bench Division in The

Sinha J. Liverpool Gorn Trade Association, Limited v. Monks

(H. M. Inspector of Taxes) (1) was based on facts which are similar to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, Limited, was an incorporated body under the Companies Act, with the object, inter alia, of protecting the interests of the corn trade, and of providing a clearing house, a market, an exchange, and arbitration and other facili-ties to the trade. Membership of the Association was confined to persons engaged in the corn trade. Each member was required to have one share in the com-pany, and had to pay an entrance fee and an annual subscription. Non-members could also become sub-scribers. Payments were made to the Association by members and others for services rendered through the clearing house, etc. The assessee was taxed on the excess of its receipts over expenditure. On appeal to the Special Commissioners, they upheld the assess-ment. One of the points raised before the Special Commissioners, was that transactions with its mem-bers were mutual ones, and that any surplus arising from such transactions, was not a profit assessable to income-tax. On appeal, the High Court agreed with the determination of the Special Commissioners, and held that any profit arising from the Association's transactions with members, was assessable to income-tax as part of the profits of its business, and that the entrance fees and subscriptions received from mem-bers must be included in the computation of such profits.

It was suggested that the service in this case, if any, was extremely trivial and the remuneration which was large was for that reason not definitely related to the

(r) (1926) ro Tax Cas. 442.

service. It was held by Upjohn, J., in Bradbury z959 (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Arnold (1) that the extent The commissioner of the services was of no materiality. There, the ques-of Income-tax. tion was being dealt with under Case VI of Schedule West Bengal Dbof thJ Income-tax Act, 1918. The learned Judge The Calc:;ta Stock 0 Serve ! Exchange

"There is no doubt that a contract for services Association Ltd. may, and clearly does, form a matter for assessment under Case VI of Schedule D, and not the less so that· Sinha J. the services to be rendered are trivial or that they are to be rendered once and for all so that the remunera-tion may be regarded as a casual profit arising out of a single and isolated transaction".

The same view was expressed by Harman, J., in Housden (Inspector of Taxes) v. Marshall (2). In that case, a well-known jockey contracted with a news-paper company to make available to its nominee " reminiscences of his life and experiences on the turf for the purpose of writing a series of four articles ", and to provide photographs, press cuttings, etc. He was paid £ 750. The question was whether this amounted to sale of property, or was a payment for services renaered. It was held that it was the latter, and that it did not matter if the service rendered was trivial.

In view of what we have said above as to the nature of the service which the Association performed in respect of the Assistants, the payment of the fee was definitely related to that service. It is, therefore, plain that the case fell within s. 10(6) of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the question referred to the

tive, and that the High Court was in error in giving its opinion to the contrary.

The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed with costs here and below.

Appeal allowed.

(1) [1957] 37 Tax Cas. 665, 669. (2) [1958] 3 All E.R. 639.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1958.

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Janu-ary 6, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 74 of 1953.

K. N. Rajagopal Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the appellant.

Radha Binod Pal, Panchanan Pal and D. N. Mukher-jee, for the respondents.

1959. March 26. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sinha ]. SINHA, J.-The question for determination in this

appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Calcutta, is whether the respondent's admit-ted income under certain heads, is chargeable to income-tax under the provisions of s; 10(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Calcutta High Court, by its judgment dated January 6, 1956, answered the question in the negative, disagreeing with the determi-nation of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated April 23, 1949.

The facts of this case, upon which the decision of the appeal depends, may shortly be stated as follows: The respondent is a limited liability company incorpo-rated on June 7, 1933, with a view to taking over the assets and liabilities of an unincorporated association called " The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association" and to carrying on the affairs of the Stock Exchange z959 which had been founded by that Association. Th c - .. The principal object of the Respondent Company 0; 1:::::;::~' is to facilitate the transaction of business on the West Bengal Calcutta Stock Exchange. In view of that objective, v. the Company had to make rules and by-laws, regulat-The Calcutta Stock mg . t h e mo d e an d t h e con d. 1t10ns . m, • an d su b 3ec • t t o, Exchange A . 1. Ltd which the business of the Stock Exchange bad to be ssocia ' 0n transacted. The Company is composed of" members" Sinha J. who may be either individuals or firms, who, except in the case of parties who had been members of the unincorporated Association have to be elected as such, and upon such elections, have to acquire a share of the Company and pay an entrance fee. The· members have to pay a monthly subscription according to the by-laws of the Company. Under the by-laws of the Respondent Company, members with a certain stand-ing, are allowed to have "Authorized Assistants ", upto a maximum of six in number. Such Authorized Assistants are permitted the use of the premises of the Association and to transact business therein in the names and on behalf of the members employing them.

The members have to pay an admission fee for such Authorized Assistants according to the following sea.le:

"(a) for the first two Assistants Rs. 1,000

(b) for the third Assistant Rs. 2,000 ( c) for the fourth Assistant Rs. 3,000 (d) for the fifth Assistant Rs. 4,000 (e) for the sixth Assistant Rs. 5,000 (f) for replacement Rs. 1,000 ".

The last item of replacement fee of Rs. 1,000/- is meant to cover the fee for substituting one Assistant by an-other. Before these by-laws were amended with effect from July 10, 1944, a member could have more than six such Assistants, but the number was limited to six by the new amendment which also provided that "Members who have more than six Assistants, at present, shall not be allowed any replacement unless the number of Assistants in their firms has come down to six (maximum fixed)." Rule (5), as amended, is in these terms :-

1 95~ "Every candidate applying for admission as - Assistant to a member must serve at least for one The Commissione. year as a pro b at10ner · m · t h e fi rm o f t h at mem b er. A of income-tax, w,,1 Bengol probationer must apply to the Committee (through

v. the member in whose office he will serve as proba-The Calcuua Stock tioner) in ·such form as may be prescribed by the

fach~nge Committee by paying Rs. 100/- as probationer fee Assomatwn Ltd. w h" h w1 "Jl not b e re f un d e d m . any mrcums . t ances ,, . IC