9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 regarding deduction of income-tax relatable to interest on long-term borrowings in computing chargeable profits for assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Rules under Companies (Profits) Surtax Act: The issue revolved around the interpretation of rules under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, specifically rules 1 to 3 of the First Schedule. Rule 1 excluded certain incomes from total income, rule 2 dealt with the deduction of income-tax payable by the company, and rule 3 addressed the addition of interest payable on debentures to the income. The Tribunal, authorities, and Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest paid on debentures, emphasizing the language used in rule 2, which only referred to actual income-tax payable and not notional income-tax attributable to disallowed interest. 2. Assessee's Claim for Deduction: The assessee argued that since interest payable on debentures was disallowed, the income-tax relatable to such disallowance should be allowed as a deduction under rule 2. The counsel relied on the interpretation of Schedule I and clause (ii) to support the claim for deducting tax payable on interest. However, the standing counsel for the Department contended that the First Schedule did not provide for including tax payable on interest, and granting such a deduction would amount to double deduction in income-tax assessment. 3. Legal Interpretation and Precedents: The court examined the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act and emphasized that rules 1 to 3 did not mention including tax payable on interest on long-term borrowings for computing chargeable profits. Referring to legal precedents, including Varghese v. ITO, the court highlighted that statutory provisions should be construed to avoid absurd results. However, in this case, where no absurdity or mischief was found in the Act's provisions, the court declined to interpret the rules differently to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee. 4. Application of Legal Principles: The court distinguished the present case from Coimbatore Salem Transports Ltd. v. CIT, where the Income-tax Officer could recompute total income under different tax acts. In the current scenario, the Income-tax Officer followed Schedule I provisions while computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. The court concluded that since the income-tax on interest was not computed initially, and there was no provision in the First Schedule for including such tax, the claim for deduction could not be granted. 5. Final Judgment: Based on the above analysis, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to refuse the deduction of alleged tax payable on interest on long-term borrowings. The judgment answered the referred question in the affirmative, against the assessee, with no costs awarded. In summary, the judgment focused on the specific provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act and the absence of a provision for including tax payable on interest on long-term borrowings in computing chargeable profits. The court's decision emphasized adherence to statutory interpretation and the lack of grounds to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee.
|
