1972 (3) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the amount of development rebate in excess of the statutory percentage required to be made under the Income-tax Act is part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act assessee is well-founded in his contention that the artificial breaking up of the development rebate reserve into 75% of the reserve statutorily required to be made under the Act and the rest of the reserve and treating the 75% of the reserve alone as tied-up reserve is incorrect question is answered in affirmative

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act regarding the treatment of development rebate in excess of the statutory percentage as part of accumulated profits.

Analysis:
The case involved a question referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding whether the excess amount of development rebate over the statutory percentage is part of the accumulated profits under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee, a governing director of a private limited company, had drawn a sum from the company, which was treated as loans or advances. The Income-tax Officer assessed a portion of this sum as "deemed dividend" based on the inclusion of the development rebate reserve in the accumulated profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the reserve was created for a specific purpose and could not be distributed as dividends. However, the Tribunal held that the excess development rebate reserve, not required under the Act, forms part of accumulated profits and is liable to be treated as dividend under section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that a reserve made towards development rebate, to the extent not required by the Income-tax Act, constitutes a free reserve and forms part of accumulated profits. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no statutory provision to charge the development rebate amount to the profit and loss account, as it is an appropriation of profit rather than a charge on profit. The Tribunal highlighted that the reserve was in excess of the statutory requirement, indicating its availability for distribution as dividend. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the development rebate reserve is a tied-up reserve, asserting that it is a free reserve and an accumulated profit.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 33, 34, and 155 of the Income-tax Act related to development rebate deductions and reserves. The Court clarified that while the development rebate is debited to the profit and loss account, it is not considered an expenditure but an allowable deduction for calculating profits. Referring to precedents, the Court established that development rebate forms part of real profits and accumulated profits available for distribution. The Court emphasized that unless profits are capitalized, mere transfer to a reserve account does not change their character as accumulated profits. The Court rejected the contention that any portion of the development rebate reserve was a tied-up reserve, affirming that the entire reserve constitutes accumulated profits.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the department, holding that the excess development rebate reserve beyond the statutory percentage is part of accumulated profits and is deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment aligned with the Tribunal's interpretation that the development rebate reserve forms part of accumulated profits available for distribution, rejecting the argument that any portion of the reserve is tied-up and cannot be treated as dividend.