9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether a certain amount should be treated as a 'reserve' for the purpose of computation of capital under the provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Summary: The High Court of Calcutta considered a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment of Messrs. Eyre Smelting Private Ltd. to super profits tax for the assessment year 1963-64. The dispute arose from the assessee's claim that a sum of Rs. 1,02,239 provisioned for bad and doubtful debts should be considered as a 'reserve' and included in the computation of its capital. The Income Tax Officer did not accept this claim, leading to appeals and further proceedings. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner applied the principle of a previous court decision and considered the nature of the provision in question. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal analyzed the distinction between a 'provision' and a 'reserve' based on commercial accountancy principles, particularly referencing the decision of the Supreme Court in the Metal Box Company of India Ltd. case. The Tribunal concluded that the provision for bad and doubtful debts constituted a 'reserve' rather than a 'provision'. The Court examined various authoritative texts on accountancy cited by the parties and the decisions of other High Courts on similar matters. Ultimately, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's guidance on the characteristics of a 'provision' and a 'reserve'. It determined that the provision made by the assessee for anticipated contingencies aligned more with the characteristics of a 'provision' rather than a 'reserve'. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the revenue, holding that the amount in question should not be treated as a 'reserve' for the purpose of capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. In conclusion, the Court decided against the assessee, emphasizing the distinction between 'provisions' and 'reserves' based on commercial accountancy principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment was delivered by C. K. Banerjee and Dipak Kumar Sen, with no order as to costs.
|
