9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of rectification order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. Deductibility of deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. Analysis: The High Court of Gujarat addressed the first issue concerning the validity of a rectification order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The case involved an assessee-company that was assessed for the year 1977-78, where chargeable profits were initially computed with a deduction for income tax but without reducing the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India. Subsequently, a rectification order was passed withdrawing the earlier deduction allowed for the deposit amount. The assessee challenged this order, arguing that the deposit should be treated as payment of surtax and hence deductible. The court examined the relevant provisions and held that the deposit made did not equate to payment of surcharge on income tax, as the liability for surcharge was eliminated by making the deposit. Therefore, the court upheld the rectification order, concluding that the deposit was not deductible for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. Moving on to the second issue, the court delved into the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1976, which provided for relief in surcharge payments through deposits with the Industrial Development Bank of India. The court analyzed the provisions and emphasized that the deposit made did not constitute actual payment of surcharge on income tax, as the liability to pay surcharge was extinguished upon making the deposit. Drawing from a similar decision by the Karnataka High Court, the Gujarat High Court affirmed that such deposits were not deductible for computing chargeable profits. The court reasoned that the relief provided in the Finance Act indicated that the surcharge amount for which relief was granted could not be considered as income tax payable by the company. Consequently, the court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, holding that the deposit made in lieu of surcharge on income tax was not deductible for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and ruling against the assessee. The court found no room for debate on the matter, asserting that the view adopted in the judgment was the only logical and plausible one. As a result, the reference was disposed of with no costs awarded.
|
