9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of dividends in the capital base for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. Justification of confirming the direction not to reduce the capital by an amount for relief under section 80J for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Issue 1: Inclusion of Dividends in Capital Base: The case involved questions related to the inclusion of dividends in the capital base for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Tribunal had to determine if dividends declared by the assessee-company for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 should be included in the capital base. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim under section 80J, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that when dividends become payable out of the general reserve, no provision for the dividend can be deducted from the general reserve to determine the company's capital under the Surtax Act. The Tribunal also noted that a subsequent approval can relate back to an earlier act, but if no act was performed earlier, there is no basis for subsequent approval to relate back. The Tribunal relied on precedents to support the relief granted to the assessee. Issue 2: Direction Regarding Relief under Section 80J: Regarding the direction not to reduce the capital by an amount for relief under section 80J for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous as the liability arises only retrospectively, not prospectively. However, the assessee's counsel supported the conclusions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The assessee's counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert that the relief granted under section 80J was correct. Legal Interpretations and Precedents: The judgment extensively discussed the distinction between "provision" and "reserve" as per commercial accountancy principles and legal interpretations. Various court decisions, such as Indian Tube Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, were cited to explain the difference between provisions and reserves. The judgment also referenced cases like Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. v. CIT to clarify the treatment of amounts set apart for dividends, profit-sharing bonuses, and depreciation funds under the Surtax Act. Conclusion: The judgment concluded by answering the two questions raised in the case. The first question, regarding the inclusion of dividends in the capital base, was decided in favor of the Revenue, indicating that dividends payable out of the general reserve should not be deducted from the general reserve for computing the company's capital under the Surtax Act. The second question, related to relief under section 80J, was answered in favor of the assessee, affirming the relief granted based on legal precedents and interpretations. The reference was disposed of accordingly, settling the issues raised in the case.
|
