2003 (11) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viii) - Intercorporate Dividends - Whether Tribunal was justified in its computation of gross total income for the purpose of conferral of benefit of section 80M without deducting the benefit covered under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act from the gross total income as provided under section 80B(5)? - held that specified percentage of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) should be given on the total income which should be worked before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. To that effect there is a clarificatory circular dated April 15 1971 - that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is flawless and does not deserve to be interfered with in this appeal. Revenue s appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in its computation of gross total income for the purpose of conferral of benefit of section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without deducting the benefit covered under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act from the gross total income as provided under section 80B(5).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Gross Total Income for Section 80M Benefits:
The central issue revolves around the computation of gross total income for the purpose of section 80M benefits, specifically whether deductions under section 36(1)(viii) should be considered before computing the deduction under section 80M.

Facts:
The assessee, M. P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam Limited, filed returns for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92, claiming deductions under sections 80M and 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept these claims, leading to appeals and subsequent decisions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal concluded that sections 36(1)(viii) and 80M are independent provisions. It held that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) do not impact the deductions claimed under section 80M, which should be calculated on the gross dividend income.

Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by treating the provisions as independent. They argued that sections 80AA, 14, 28, and 57 should be read conjointly, and the computation method adopted by the Tribunal would violate the Act's provisions. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India.

Assessee's Argument:
The assessee supported the Tribunal's computation, referencing the concept of total income under the Act and decisions from various High Courts, including CIT v. M. P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd., CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, and CIT v. General Insurance Corporation of India.

Legal Provisions:
- Section 36(1)(viii): Allows deduction for special reserves created by financial corporations.
- Section 80AA: Specifies that deductions under section 80M should be computed with reference to the income by way of dividends as computed under the Act.
- Section 80M: Provides deduction for intercorporate dividends.
- Section 80B(5): Defines "gross total income" as total income computed before making any deductions under Chapter VI-A.

Judicial Precedents:
- General Insurance Corporation of India (No. 1): Deductions under section 80M should be based on net dividend income.
- CIT v. Bhoruka Investments (P) Ltd.: Relief under section 80M should be allowed on the dividend income before set-off of losses.
- CIT v. Maganlal Chhaganlal (P.) Ltd.: Deductions under section 80M should be calculated after deducting interest on borrowed monies.
- CIT v. Chemical Holdings Ltd.: Relief under section 80M should be given on the net dividend after deducting expenses incurred in earning the dividend.
- M. P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd. (No. 1): Deduction under section 36(1)(viii) should be calculated on total income before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A.
- CIT v. Central Bank of India: Deductions under section 80M should be on net dividend income after actual expenditure.

Court's Analysis:
The court analyzed the interplay between sections 36(1)(viii) and 80M, emphasizing that the creation of reserves under section 36(1)(viii) does not constitute an actual expenditure. The court referred to various judicial precedents and clarified that deductions under section 80M should be computed on the net dividend income, considering actual expenses incurred in earning the dividend.

Conclusion:
The court found the Tribunal's findings to be flawless and upheld the decision that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) do not affect the computation of deductions under section 80M. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the deductions under section 36(1)(viii) and section 80M are independent, and the computation of section 80M benefits should be based on gross dividend income.