1997 (2) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

I. T. O. brought to tax the accumulated profits of a company in liquidation representing the sale of the companies assets as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(c) - Once it is profit, it is so for all purposes, and any distribution made out of such an amount should be assessed in the hands of shareholders as dividends - Section 41(2) of the 1961 Act plainly makes the excess amount chargeable as income . If it is so, it will be taken in by section 2(24) - matter referred to larger bench

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act regarding deemed dividends.
2. Determination of whether profits assessed under section 41(2) can form part of accumulated profits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of section 2(22)(c) regarding deemed dividends
The case involved the interpretation of section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act to determine whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of income assessed as deemed dividends. The Revenue contended that certain profits assessed under section 41(2) should be considered as income of the shareholders under section 2(22)(c) of the Act. However, the High Court of Madras held that the excess amount on the sale of capital assets, as assessed under section 41(2), cannot be considered as commercial profit and therefore cannot form part of accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(c). The High Court relied on previous decisions that emphasized the need to limit legal fictions created by tax provisions. The Revenue argued that the excess amount on the sale of assets should be considered as income for all purposes under the Act and should be assessed as dividends to shareholders.

Issue 2: Inclusion of profits assessed under section 41(2) in accumulated profits
The main contention revolved around whether profits assessed under section 41(2) could form part of accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue argued that the excess amount on the sale of capital assets, as assessed under section 41(2), should be considered as profit and distributed to shareholders as dividends. On the other hand, the assessees argued that the balancing charge under section 41(2) should be treated as a capital reserve and not as commercial profit, thus exempting it from being deemed as dividends under section 2(22)(c). The court noted the differences in language between section 10(2)(vii) of the 1922 Act and section 41(2) of the 1961 Act, indicating a need for a detailed analysis of the provisions of both Acts. Due to the complexity and importance of the issues involved, the court directed the matter to be heard and disposed of by a larger Bench for further consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment raised significant questions regarding the interpretation of tax provisions related to deemed dividends and the inclusion of profits assessed under section 41(2) in accumulated profits. The case highlighted the need for a detailed examination of legal fictions created by tax laws and the application of such provisions in determining tax liabilities for shareholders.