9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 regarding computation of capital for a non-resident company based on income or operating revenue. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a non-resident shipping company with Indian assessable income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose on how to compute the company's capital for Surtax Act purposes. The company calculated capital based on Indian to world income ratio, while the tax authorities used Indian to world operating revenue ratio. The Tribunal favored the company's method citing rule 4, which adjusts capital for income not included in total income. The Tribunal highlighted differences between total income and commercial income, emphasizing non-inclusion reasons under sections 5 and 10 of the Income-tax Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of determining capital correctly under the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act. Rule 4 specifically addresses adjusting capital for income not included in total income. The Court analyzed the definition of total income for non-residents under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, which includes income received or deemed in India. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that only section 10 income exclusions apply, clarifying that total income definition limits non-resident income to what is received or accrued in India. The Court further examined the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act return form, noting the requirement to state income not included in total income. The form's notes clarified that non-resident company income outside India falls under non-includible income. Rule 4's application was deemed appropriate for adjusting capital based on such income. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that income not included in total income extends beyond section 10 exclusions for non-resident companies. In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee, supporting the Tribunal's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting rules for computing capital under the Surtax Act, especially concerning income not included in total income for non-resident companies. The decision provides clarity on the scope of non-includible income and the application of rule 4 in adjusting capital accordingly.
|
