9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. Classification of "depreciation reserve" as a "reserve" for surtax purposes. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Computation of the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964: The core issue in this judgment pertains to the computation of the capital base of the assessee-company under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The relevant rule for this computation is Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act, which outlines the components that constitute the capital of a company. Specifically, Rule 1 mentions the inclusion of paid-up share capital and reserves, among other items, in the calculation of the capital base. 2. Classification of "depreciation reserve" as a "reserve" for surtax purposes: The primary question referred to the court was whether the excess provision made for depreciation, termed as "depreciation reserve," qualifies as a "reserve" forming part of the capital for surtax purposes. The assessee, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing tobacco products, had been setting aside amounts as "depreciation reserve" over and above the depreciation allowable under the Income-tax Act. This practice was aimed at providing for unforeseen contingencies and was referred to as creating "secret reserves." The Surtax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the assessee's claim, relying on precedents from the Allahabad High Court and the Mysore High Court. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, leading to the Revenue seeking a reference from the High Court. The High Court examined the meaning of "reserve" with reference to several Supreme Court decisions, including CIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 499, First National City Bank v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 17, CIT v. Standard Vacuum Oil Company Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 685, and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559. The Supreme Court had consistently held that a "reserve" is an amount kept back for future use or enjoyment, either generally or for a specific purpose, and must be distinguished from a "provision," which is a charge against profits. Applying these principles, the High Court found that the "depreciation reserve" set apart by the assessee constituted a "reserve" as it was intended for future use, specifically for replacing machinery. The court noted that such reserves are commonly known in commercial parlance as "secret reserves" and are created out of post-tax profits. The High Court also referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 831, which supported the inclusion of excess depreciation provision in the capital base computation under similar provisions. Additionally, the court considered other relevant cases, including CIT v. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 241 and Nagammal Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 387, which affirmed the principle that excess provisions for specific purposes could be treated as "reserves." The High Court distinguished the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Hind Lamps Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 487, noting that it turned on the absence of evidence showing that the amount was set apart for future use. The court concluded that the "depreciation reserve" in the present case met the criteria of a "reserve" as outlined by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: For the above reasons, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the "depreciation reserve" constituted a "reserve" forming part of the capital for surtax purposes, thus ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. There was no order as to costs.
|
