1979 (7) TMI 204 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Rs. 8 lakhs is part of the reserve under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
2. Whether Rs. 3 lakhs is part of the reserve under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the additional ground to be raised for the first time before it.
4. Whether the amounts of Rs. 2,40,966 and Rs. 2,09,999 for provision for taxation and provision for dividends, respectively, could be treated as reserves under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rs. 8 Lakhs as Reserve:

The issue was whether Rs. 8 lakhs transferred to the reserve fund account by the board of directors' resolution on March 1, 1962, should be considered part of the reserve as of January 1, 1962. The Tribunal initially rejected this claim, stating that the board's resolution needed the shareholders' sanction. However, the court held that under regulations 85 and 87 of the Companies Act, the board had the authority to create reserves without shareholder approval. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., which stated that appropriations to reserves relate back to the beginning of the financial year. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Rs. 8 lakhs should be treated as part of the reserve.

2. Rs. 3 Lakhs as Reserve:

The issue was whether Rs. 3 lakhs transferred to the reserve fund account by the board of directors' resolution on June 29, 1963, should be considered part of the reserve as of January 1, 1962. The Tribunal decided that since the resolution was passed after the accounts for 1961 were approved, this amount could not be considered a reserve as of the critical date. The court agreed with the Tribunal, ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.

3. Additional Ground Raised:

The issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee to raise an additional ground of appeal regarding the treatment of provisions for taxation and dividends as reserves. The Tribunal allowed this based on the precedent set by CIT v. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand. The court upheld this decision, stating that the Tribunal was right in law to allow the additional ground. Thus, the answer to this question was in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

4. Provisions for Taxation and Dividends as Reserves:

The issue was whether the provisions for taxation (Rs. 2,40,966) and dividends (Rs. 2,09,999) should be treated as reserves. The Tribunal had allowed these amounts to be treated as reserves, relying on the judgment in CIT v. Security Printers of India (P.) Ltd. However, the court disagreed, citing recent judgments, including Oswal Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. CIT, which stated that such provisions could not be treated as reserves. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that the amounts for provisions for taxation and dividends should not be treated as reserves.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the Rs. 8 lakhs but against the assessee concerning the Rs. 3 lakhs and the provisions for taxation and dividends. The Tribunal's decision to allow the additional ground was upheld.

← Previous Next →