Skip to content


Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 497 of 1976 (Reserence No. 370 of 1976)
Judge
Reported in[1981]130ITR545(Mad)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 9, 166, 209, 210(1), 211, 211(1), 217, 217(1), 220 and 220(2); Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Schedule - Rule 2
AppellantSouthern Roadways Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv
Appellant AdvocateS. Swaminathan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ. Jayaraman and ;Nalini Chidambaram, Advs.
Excerpt:
company - date of balance sheet - sections 9, 166, 209, 210, 211, 217, 220 of companies act, 1956 and rule 2 of schedule to companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 - items in balance sheet has necessarily to relate back to earlier date - every balance sheet deals with position of company as on last day of year for which balance sheet prepared - date of preparation of balance sheet as such has no significance - even reserves shown would date back to first day of year. - - but having regard to certain observations made in the full bench judgment, we feel that this issue is better decided by a full bench rather that by a division bench......computation of the capital will have to be done with reference to the explanation. though the full bench decision related to an insurance company, as if the principle laid down in that judgment was applicable even to non-insurance companies, a division bench, without going into the explanation, simply purported to apply the principle in the decision in india motor parts & accessories ltd. v. cit : [1981]130itr311(mad) . it may also be mentioned that there was an earlier bench judgment in madras auto service v. cit : [1978]112itr540(mad) , which held that a provision for dividends cannot be considered to be a general reserve either on principle or on the provisions of the companies act. but this decision was neither noticed by the full bench nor by the division bench. but even if it is to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 18,64,065 which was distributed as dividend to the shareholders of the assessee-company should be excluded in the computation of the capital for ascertaining the 'statutory deduction' for the purpose of assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'

2. Since we are referring this matter to a Full Bench, we feel that it is not necessary to set out the facts or the arguments in detail. Suffice it to state that the learned counsel for the assessee relied on a Full Bench judgment in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1979]117ITR534(Mad) as concluding this question. In this decision, this court considered the scope of r. 1, Second Schedule, to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Since the assessee, in that case, was an insurance company, the argument on behalf of the revenue based on Expln. II to r. 1 was not considered and no definite answer was given. In the present case, since the assessee is not an insurance company, the computation of the capital will have to be done with reference to the Explanation. Though the Full Bench decision related to an insurance company, as if the principle laid down in that judgment was applicable even to non-insurance companies, a Division Bench, without going into the Explanation, simply purported to apply the principle in the decision in India Motor Parts & Accessories Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]130ITR311(Mad) . It may also be mentioned that there was an earlier Bench judgment in Madras Auto Service v. CIT : [1978]112ITR540(Mad) , which held that a provision for dividends cannot be considered to be a general reserve either on principle or on the provisions of the Companies Act. But this decision was neither noticed by the Full Bench nor by the Division Bench. But even if it is to be treated as a general reserve whether in view of the Explanation to r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, it will have to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the capital is the question that will have to be directly decided in this case. But having regard to certain observations made in the Full Bench judgment, we feel that this issue is better decided by a Full Bench rather that by a Division Bench.

3. We, accordingly, direct that the papers may be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for posting this particular case before a Full Bench.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //