1973 (3) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. was a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,21,173 could be treated as dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Whether the amount standing to the credit of the reserve for development rebate would form part of the accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Whether the excess in the development rebate reserve over the statutory reserve created under the Income-tax Act was part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
5. Whether the sum standing to the credit of the reserve for redemption of preference shares was part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. was a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

The court examined the four conditions under Explanation 1 to section 23A to determine if the company was one in which the public were substantially interested. The conditions are:
- The company should not be a private company as defined in the Companies Act 1956.
- Its shares, other than those entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, carrying not less than fifty percent of the voting power, should be held by the public.
- The shares should be freely transferable by the holder to other members of the public.
- The company's affairs or shares carrying more than fifty percent of the voting power should not be controlled by less than six persons.

The court found that:
- The company was a public limited company.
- The 1,328 shares held by Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. were deemed to be held by the public as the bank was entitled to freely exercise its voting power.
- The company's business was primarily the manufacture and sale of yarn, and the sale of cotton worth Rs. 17 lakhs was incidental and not the main business.
- The shares were freely transferable, and the company's articles of association did not restrict the transfer of shares.
- The controlling group held less than fifty percent of the total voting power.

Thus, all conditions were satisfied, and the company was one in which the public were substantially interested.

2. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,21,173 could be treated as dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

The court referred to its previous judgment in Govindarajulu Naidu v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that for section 2(6A)(e) to apply, there should be an actual cash advance or loan from the company to the assessee. In this case, the funds were misappropriated by Rudrappan and not paid as a loan or advance by the company. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 3,21,173 could not be treated as a dividend under section 2(6A)(e).

3. Whether the amount standing to the credit of the reserve for development rebate would form part of the accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

The court referred to its decision in G. Ramaswami Naidu v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that the development rebate reserve forms part of the accumulated profits. Therefore, the amount standing to the credit of the reserve for development rebate would form part of the accumulated profits.

4. Whether the excess in the development rebate reserve over the statutory reserve created under the Income-tax Act was part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act:

The court did not answer this question as it was not properly referred. It held that a party must file an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to ask for a reference of any question to the High Court.

5. Whether the sum standing to the credit of the reserve for redemption of preference shares was part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act:

Similar to the fourth issue, the court did not answer this question as it was not properly referred.

Conclusion:

The court answered the first and second questions against the revenue and the third question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The references for the fourth and fifth questions were returned unanswered as they were not properly referred. The assessee was entitled to costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250.