High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. Deb, Dipak Kumar Sen
DUNCAN BROTHERS AND CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 642 Of 1972
Decided On : 12/24/1975
SUPER PROFITS TAX ACT, 1963 - COMPANIES (PROFITS) SURTAX ACT, 1964 - COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL - PROVISION FOR TAXATION - WHETHER A RESERVE OR A FUND - INTERPRETATION OF RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE SECOND SCHEDULES TO THE RESPECTIVE ACTS.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a limited company, made a provision for taxation in its accounts for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the provision as a reserve or as a deduction from the cost of investments in computing its capital for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the provision was not a reserve but allowed it as a deduction from the cost of investments. The Tribunal held that the provision was neither a reserve nor a fund and could not be deducted from the cost of investments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provision for taxation made by the assessee was not a reserve within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, as it was an amount set apart to meet an accrued existing liability and not a contingency which may arise in future. However, the court held that the provision for taxation constituted a fund within the meaning of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as it was a source of payment of cost for some assets and not an amount already earmarked for a particular liability.
Issues: 1. Whether the provision for taxation made by the assessee was a reserve within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963? 2. Whether the provision for taxation constituted a fund within the meaning of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provision for taxation was not a reserve within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, as it was an amount set apart to meet an accrued existing liability and not a contingency which may arise in future. The court followed its earlier decision in Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that a provision for taxation could not be a reserve within the meaning of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, as it was not specifically kept apart for future use or contingency. 2. The court held that the provision for taxation constituted a fund within the meaning of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as it was a source of payment of cost for some assets and not an amount already earmarked for a particular liability. The court rejected the revenue's contention that the expression "fund" in the rule meant only a free or unfrozen fund available for any purpose to the company.
Final Decision: The court answered the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, and the second question in the negative and in favor of the assessee.
( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of Messrs. Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. , the assessee, the effect of a provision made for taxation by a limited company on the computation of its capital for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, has to be determined. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65. The accounting years involved are the years ended 31st December, 1962, and the 3ist December, 1963.
( 2 ) THE facts found and/or admitted in this reference may shortly be stated as follows : For the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee had claimed that in the computation of its capital a provision for taxation Of the amount of Rs. 16,48,888 should be treated either as a part of capital under the head "other reserves" under Rule 1 or as a deduction from cost of investments in terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the said provision was only an amount set apart to meet the liability for taxation, considered as accruing on the last date of the accounting year, and could not be treated as a reserve. But the alternative contention that such a provision fell under Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, was accepted and it was held that the said sum of Rs. 16,48,888 on account of this provision for taxation had to be reduced from the cost of investments in computing the capital base.
( 3 ) IN respect of the assessment year 1964-65 a sum of Rs. 17,52,920 had been laid out by the assessee as a provision for taxation and the assessee claimed that the said amount should either be treated as a reserve or as a deduction in arriving at the net cost of investments under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the purpose of computation of the assessee's capital. The Income-tax Officer again disallowed the claim of the assessee but on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld such claim on the alternative ground that it was to be deducted from the cost of investments under Rule 2 (ii) of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
( 4 ) FROM the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of both the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, the revenue went up on further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the provision for taxation made by the assessee in both the assessment years was neither a "fund" nor a "surplus" and could not be a reserve to form part of the capital. Such a provision being made against a perfected debt did not qualify for any deduction as claimed by the assessee. From the order of the Tribunal the following questions have been referred : for the assessment year 1963-64 :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'provision for taxation' is not a reserve as to form part of the capital under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of capital the company was not entitled to the benefit of deduction of the amount of 'provision for taxation' from its cost of investments in terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. "for the assessment year 1964-65 ;"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of capital the company was not entitled to the benefit of deduction of 'provision for taxation' from its cost of investments in terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.