9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provision for taxation amounting to Rs. 22,75,000 should be included in the capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. 2. Whether the proposed dividends amounting to Rs. 11,83,050 should be included in the capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Provision for Taxation: The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 22,75,000, set aside as a provision for taxation, qualifies as a "reserve" under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The Income-tax Officer, supported by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, excluded this amount from the capital computation, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1966] 59 ITR 767 (SC). The Tribunal upheld this exclusion, reasoning that the provision for taxation was a known liability, thus constituting a "provision" and not a "reserve." The court examined the definitions of "provision" and "reserve" under Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. A "provision" is any amount retained to meet a known liability, whereas a "reserve" is an amount set aside for future use, not earmarked for any known liability. The Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) explained that provisions are charges against profits, while reserves are appropriations of profits. Applying this distinction, the court concluded that the Rs. 22,75,000 set aside for taxation was a provision for a known liability, as the tax liability arose at the end of the accounting year, even though its exact amount was not determined. This conclusion was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Industries, where a provision for taxation was considered a "debt owed" and not a reserve. Therefore, the court held that the sum of Rs. 22,75,000 was not a reserve and should not be included in the capital computation. 2. Proposed Dividends: The second issue was whether the sum of Rs. 11,83,050, set aside as proposed dividends, should be included in the capital computation. The Tribunal had included this amount, reasoning that it was not an actual liability until declared by the shareholders, thus qualifying as a reserve. The court examined the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 499 (SC), which held that undistributed profits earmarked for dividends do not constitute a reserve. The court emphasized that for an amount to be a reserve, it must be separated from the general mass of profits and intended for future use in the business. The amount set aside for proposed dividends was earmarked for distribution and not for future business use, thus not qualifying as a reserve. The court also referred to subsequent decisions, including those of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindustan Milk Food Mfg. Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 517 (Punj) and the Supreme Court in First National City Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 42 ITR 17 (SC), which supported the view that amounts set aside for dividends are not reserves. The court concluded that the sum of Rs. 11,83,050 set aside for proposed dividends was not a reserve and should not be included in the capital computation. Conclusion: The court answered both questions in favor of the department: 1. The sum of Rs. 22,75,000 as provision for taxation should not be included in the capital computation. 2. The sum of Rs. 11,83,050 as proposed dividends should not be included in the capital computation. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the department.
|
