9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rs. 8 lakhs is part of the reserve within the meaning of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. 2. Whether Rs. 3 lakhs is part of the reserve within the meaning of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the additional ground to be raised for the first time before it. 4. Whether the amounts of Rs. 2,40,966 and Rs. 2,09,999, respectively, for provision for taxation and provision for dividends could be treated as reserves to be included in the computation of the assessee's capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Rs. 8 Lakhs as Reserve The Tribunal disallowed Rs. 8 lakhs as a reserve, asserting that the board of directors' resolution to transfer the amount to the reserve account required shareholder approval. The Tribunal cited the resolution passed on March 1, 1962, and the entry made on April 30, 1962. However, the court held that the board's resolution was sufficient to create a reserve without shareholder approval, as per regulations 85 and 87 of Schedule 1, Table A, of the Companies Act, 1956. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., concluding that the entry made on April 30, 1962, related back to January 1, 1962. Therefore, the Rs. 8 lakhs was considered a part of the reserve, and the Tribunal was not justified in excluding it. The answer was in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Rs. 3 Lakhs as Reserve The Rs. 3 lakhs was first resolved to be transferred to the reserve account on June 29, 1963. The Tribunal rightly concluded that this amount could not be considered a reserve as of January 1, 1962, since the resolution was passed much later. Thus, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, and the answer was in favor of the revenue. Issue 3: Additional Ground Raised The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground regarding the inclusion of provision for taxation and dividends as reserves. This decision was supported by the court's earlier ruling in CIT v. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand, which permitted raising new grounds at the appellate stage. The court reaffirmed this view in Oswal Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. CIT. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the additional ground, and the answer was in favor of the assessee. Issue 4: Provision for Taxation and Dividends as Reserves The Tribunal treated the amounts of Rs. 2,40,966 (provision for taxation) and Rs. 2,09,999 (provision for dividends) as reserves based on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in CIT v. Security Printers of India (P.) Ltd. However, the court disagreed, citing its own decisions in Oswal Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. CIT and CIT v. Hindustan Milk Food Mfg. Ltd., and judgments from other High Courts, which held that such provisions could not be treated as reserves. The court concluded that the Tribunal was wrong in its decision, and the answer was in favor of the revenue. Conclusion: The court's judgment addressed the four issues comprehensively, providing clarity on the interpretation of reserves under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on the first and third issues, while siding with the revenue on the second and fourth issues.
|
