9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment on the assessee computing the profit under rule 2(a) for the Indian branch of Winterthur Life Assurance Company Ltd. and adopting the surplus under rule 2(b) for its own business in a single assessment. 2. Entitlement of the assessee to exemption of Rs. 43,588 under section 4(3)(xii) of the Income-tax Act in each of the aforesaid assessments. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment The primary contention revolves around whether the profits of the Indian branch of Winterthur Life Assurance Company Ltd. and the surplus of the assessee's own business could be computed under different rules (rule 2(a) and rule 2(b)) and then combined in a single assessment. The assessee argued that the businesses of both companies had merged de facto and de jure from January 1, 1952, following an agreement dated December 29, 1952, which was sanctioned by the court. The agreement stipulated that the Swiss company would transfer its assets and liabilities to the assessee, but the transfer would only be effective upon the court's sanction and the Controller of Foreign Exchange's permission. The court examined the terms of the agreement and concluded that the Swiss company continued to operate its business through agents even after the agreement date, indicating that ownership did not transfer immediately on January 1, 1952. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions under sections 153 and 153A of the Indian Companies Act required court sanction for the transfer to be effective. The court's sanction did not have retrospective effect, meaning the transfer could not be deemed effective from January 1, 1952, but only from the date of the court's order. Hence, the Swiss company remained an independent entity during the relevant assessment years, and the computation of profits under different rules for each business was valid. Issue 2: Entitlement to Exemption The second issue concerned whether the assessee was entitled to an exemption of Rs. 43,588 under section 4(3)(xii) of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that section 10(7) of the Act excluded the operation of other provisions in regard to the computation of income of insurance business, which had to be done under rule 2(a) or rule 2(b) of the Schedule to the Act. The court referenced previous decisions, including Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., which were against the assessee's claim for exemption. Consequently, the court ruled that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section 4(3)(xii). Conclusion: The court answered both questions against the assessee. The assessment combining profits computed under rule 2(a) for Winterthur Life Assurance Company Ltd. and the surplus under rule 2(b) for the assessee's business was valid. Additionally, the assessee was not entitled to the claimed exemption under section 4(3)(xii) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250.
|
