9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the debenture redemption reserve should be included in the capital computation for surtax purposes under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Debenture Redemption Reserve in Capital Computation for Surtax: The primary issue revolves around whether the sum of Rs. 51,00,000 standing to the credit of the debenture redemption reserve should be considered part of the capital for surtax computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected this inclusion, arguing that the reserve was created to meet a specific liability, i.e., the repayment of debenture loans, and thus could not be regarded as a reserve. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently the Tribunal held a different view, treating the amount as a reserve rather than a provision. Legal Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements: The judgment delves into the relevant provisions of the Surtax Act and judicial pronouncements to delineate the area in which the Surtax Act operates. The Surtax Act imposes a special tax on the profits of companies exceeding the statutory deduction, defined as ten percent of the company's capital or Rs. 200,000, whichever is greater. The capital computation rules are detailed in the Second Schedule of the Act, which includes paid-up share capital and various reserves, but excludes items under "Current Liabilities and Provisions" as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Definitions and Distinctions: The judgment emphasizes the distinction between "reserve" and "provision" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559. A provision is a charge against profits for anticipated losses or known liabilities, while a reserve is an appropriation of profits retained as part of the capital employed in the business. The judgment also references the definitions in Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, which clarifies that reserves do not include amounts retained for depreciation, renewals, or known liabilities. Case Law Analysis: The judgment reviews several cases to elucidate the characteristics of reserves and provisions: - Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559 (SC): The Supreme Court outlined that provisions are charges against profits for known liabilities, while reserves are appropriations of profits retained as part of the capital. - CIT v. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 332 (Cal): The Calcutta High Court held that an ad hoc appropriation without a scientific basis cannot be termed a reserve. - CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 716 (Bom): The Bombay High Court emphasized the need for actuarial valuation to determine if an appropriation is a reserve. - CIT v. Peico Electronics and Electricals [1987] 166 ITR 299 (Cal): The Calcutta High Court ruled that a debenture redemption reserve created from profits and not invested outside the business qualifies as a reserve. - CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 2) [1992] 197 ITR 655 (Del): The Delhi High Court held that a debenture redemption fund set apart for future use qualifies as a reserve. - Commissioner of Surtax/Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 270 (Guj): The Gujarat High Court ruled that amounts transferred to the general reserve and not utilized for known liabilities qualify as reserves. Conclusion and Remand: The judgment concludes that the nomenclature of a reserve does not determine its nature; instead, the nature of the reserve is crucial. It must be examined whether the reserve is created to meet any known or existing liability. The Tribunal is directed to re-examine the case to determine if the debenture redemption reserve qualifies as a reserve for capital computation purposes, considering the principles laid down in the cited judgments. The case is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh examination, and no costs are awarded.
|
