9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (2) TMI 5 - SC - Income TaxLife Insurance Corporation - the sum of Rs. 29, 39, 959 being the refund of income-tax received by the Corporation during the inter-valuation period in respect of the income-tax up to the assessment year 1956-57 of the life insurance business of the erstwhile insurers whose business had been taken over by the Corporation should be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee under rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act 1961
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of income-tax refund received by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) during the inter-valuation period under rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deductibility of Income-Tax Refund under Rule 2(1)(b): The core issue in this appeal was whether the sum of Rs. 29,39,959, being the refund of income-tax received by the LIC during the inter-valuation period, should be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee under rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year was 1963-64, and the accounting period ended on March 31, 1963. Contentions and Findings: - Assessee's Argument: The LIC contended that the entire amount of the income-tax refund was not includible in the revenue account and should not be treated as profits and gains for the assessment year under consideration. The LIC argued that since the taxes were paid by its predecessor before the formation of the Corporation, the refund should not be included in its revenue account. - Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that in computing the profits under section 44 read with rule 2(1)(b), only those adjustments to the surplus or deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation which are permissible under the rule can be made. They contended that the refund related to taxes paid by the predecessor and not by the Corporation itself; hence, it should not be excluded under rule 2(1)(b). Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's contention, stating that only the portion of the refunds included in the surplus or deficit of the earlier inter-valuation period should be excluded. The Tribunal upheld that Rs. 2,73,50,939 of the refund was allowable under rule 2(1)(b) and disallowed the balance amount. High Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that rule 2(1)(b) is an artificial mode of computation of profits for life insurance business. It emphasized that the surplus to be deducted must have been shown as a surplus of the earlier inter-valuation period of the particular assessee, not its predecessor. Supreme Court's Analysis: - Legal Fiction of Section 7 of the LIC Act: The Supreme Court highlighted the provisions of section 7 of the LIC Act, which states that all assets and liabilities of the predecessor insurers are transferred to and vested in the LIC from the appointed day. This includes all rights, powers, and property related to the controlled business of the insurers. - Harmonious Construction: The Court emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of the provisions of the LIC Act and rule 2(1)(b). It concluded that the legal fiction enacted in section 7(2) must be taken to its logical conclusion. Therefore, the refund of the excess tax paid by the predecessor should be deemed to be included in the inherited opening balance of the Corporation. - Principle from Bombay Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. CIT: The Court referred to the principle that amounts forming part of the surplus in future actuarial valuations should not be taxed again, reinforcing that the refund should be considered as part of the surplus carried forward from the earlier inter-valuation period. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the amount of refund should be deemed to be included in the earlier inter-valuation period of the Corporation, thereby satisfying the requirement of rule 2(1)(b). The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal, answering the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Final Judgment: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal were set aside. The question was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.
|
