9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether dividend income and royalty income should be excluded from chargeable profits as gross amounts or net amounts. Analysis: The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of clauses (viii) and (ix) of rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The contention was whether dividend and royalty income should be excluded from chargeable profits as gross amounts or net amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous Tribunal order stating that it should be the gross amount. However, the departmental representative argued based on the Supreme Court decision in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India that the deduction should be the net amount of dividend income. The Supreme Court's interpretation was that the deduction under section 80M of the Income-tax Act should be the net amount of dividend less interest paid on borrowed money. This interpretation was supported by various High Court rulings, including the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal provisions and case law to determine the correct interpretation. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.'s case had interpreted the words 'income by way of dividends' to mean not only the category but also the quantum of income. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that under rule 1(viii) and (ix), the net amount of dividends and royalties should be excluded from chargeable profits after deducting interest and management expenses. This conclusion was reached after considering the changed interpretation of similar words in section 80M by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the argument regarding the retrospective effect of section 80AA of the Income-tax Act compared to the Surtax Act. The Tribunal pointed out that the Explanation added to rule 1 was effective from 1-4-1981, but this was not fatal to the revenue's case. The legislative intention behind the amendment was to rectify the unintended benefit given to companies in respect of dividends received. The Tribunal emphasized that since section 80AA was clarificatory, the Explanation to rule 1 should also be considered clarificatory and not substantive. Consequently, the departmental appeal was allowed, and the departmental contentions were accepted. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the interpretation of dividend and royalty income exclusion from chargeable profits, aligning it with the Supreme Court's interpretation and relevant legal provisions. The ruling emphasized the importance of considering the net amount of dividends and royalties after deducting relevant expenses for determining chargeable profits under the Surtax Act.
|
