9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of Additional Depreciation Reserve 2. Treatment of Additional Taxation Reserve Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Additional Depreciation Reserve The primary issue was whether the amount of Rs. 8,30,716 shown as the additional depreciation reserve in the balance-sheet should be regarded as a reserve for the purposes of computation of the capital of the assessee under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The assessee, a company, re-valued its assets in 1962 and provided for additional depreciation reserve over and above the normal depreciation to meet the replacement cost for old machinery and plant. This additional depreciation reserve was intended for modernization or rehabilitation. The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 8,30,716 should be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of computation of the capital of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the actual facts and the well-settled principle on this aspect. The revenue did not seriously dispute this point. Therefore, the court answered the first part of the question affirmatively and in favor of the assessee, confirming that the Tribunal was right in treating the sum of Rs. 8,30,716 as a reserve for the purpose of the computation of capital of the assessee-company. 2. Treatment of Additional Taxation Reserve The second issue concerned the additional taxation reserve of Rs. 13 lakhs, set aside by the directors on 30th April, 1963, in anticipation of the impending levy of super profits tax proposed in the Budget of 1963. The Super Profits Tax Act received the assent of the President on 4th May, 1963. The company's liability for this tax was approximately Rs. 8 1/2 lakhs, but the directors made a provision for Rs. 13 lakhs. The excess provision was ultimately ploughed back into the reserves of the company. The ITO initially treated the additional depreciation reserve and additional taxation reserve as provisions not eligible for inclusion in the capital base of the company. The AAC upheld this decision, relying on the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the excess provision of Rs. 7,24,507 (the difference between Rs. 13 lakhs and the actual liability of Rs. 5,75,493) should be treated as a reserve. The Tribunal considered the relevant provisions of Sch. VI of the Companies Act, the Explanation to r. 1 of Sch. II of the C. (P.) S.T. Act, and the observations of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the excess provision was in the nature of a reserve. The court noted that the question was confined to whether the additional taxation liability to the extent of Rs. 7,24,507 should be taken as a reserve for the purpose of computation of the capital of the assessee-company. It was well settled that an excess provision even for a known liability should be regarded as a reserve. The directors' recommendation to treat Rs. 13 lakhs as reserve for taxation was made before the S.P.T. Act received the assent of the President, but the recommendation could not have been accepted by the shareholders until after the Act was passed. The court relied on various decisions, including CIT v. Avery India Ltd., and concluded that the excess provision should be treated as a reserve. Therefore, the court answered the second aspect of the question by stating that any excess provision over and above Rs. 8 1/2 lakhs out of Rs. 13 lakhs should be treated as reserve. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,30,716 should be treated as a reserve and that the excess provision for taxation liability should be treated as a reserve. However, the excess provision should be the difference between Rs. 8 1/2 lakhs and Rs. 13 lakhs, amounting to Rs. 4,50,000. Each party was ordered to pay and bear its own costs.
|
