Skip to content


Wood Craft Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 248 of 1986
Judge
Reported in[1993]204ITR545(Cal)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37 and 80G
AppellantWood Craft Products Limited;commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax;wood Craft Products Limited
Advocates:R.K. Murarka, Adv.;R.C. Prosad, Adv.
Cases ReferredAsner v. Macomber
Excerpt:
- .....raise the authorised share capital and rs. 500 representing the application fee paid for issue of bonus shares by holding that the said expenses were not capital expenditure ? (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of rs. 14,467 being export subsidy and duty drawback accrued to the assessee in the previous year but not shown in the profit and loss account?'4. in this proceeding, the assessment year involved is 1978-79 for which the relevant year of account is the year ended on march 31, 1978.5. question no. 1 in r. a. no. 916/(cal) of 1986 is concluded by a judgment of this court in the case of cit v. upper ganges sugar mills ltd. : [1985]154itr308(cal) . following that decision,.....
Judgment:

Suhas Chandra Sen, J.

1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court :

2. R. A. No. 916/(Cal) of 1986 :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the claim under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the donation of Rs. 1,50,000 given to Vishwa Mangal Trust ?

3. R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 :

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the dis-allowance of Rs. 7,500 representing the statutory fee paid in connection with the application to raise the authorised share capital and Rs. 500 representing the application fee paid for issue of bonus shares by holding that the said expenses were not capital expenditure ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,467 being export subsidy and duty drawback accrued to the assessee in the previous year but not shown in the profit and loss account?'

4. In this proceeding, the assessment year involved is 1978-79 for which the relevant year of account is the year ended on March 31, 1978.

5. Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 916/(Cal) of 1986 is concluded by a judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1985]154ITR308(Cal) . Following that decision, this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.

6. Question No. 2 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is also concluded by a judgment delivered on September 22, 1989, in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year in Income-tax Reference No. 128 of 1982 (CIT v. Wood Craft Products Ltd.), wherein it was held that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in its decision. Following that judgment, question No. 2 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

7. Mr. R. C. Prosad, appearing for the Revenue, drew our attention to a judgment in the case of G. Padmanabha Chettiar and Sons v. CIT : [1990]182ITR1(Mad) , wherein it was held that the same system of accounting should be adopted for receipts and payments. The assessee cannot adopt the mercantile system to claim deduction of amounts payable by it and the cash system in respect of amounts due to it.

8. The facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the instant case. The assessee did not only adopt the mercantile system in respect of the amounts due to it, but the assessee was actually following the mercantile system both for receipts and also for expenditure. Because of the special circumstances, it had decided to treat the amount of export subsidy separately and prepare proper accounts on the basis of cash receipts. The reasons for this were gone into and examined in the earlier judgment. We see no reason to depart from the view taken in the earlier judgment.

9. Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is in two parts. The first part relates to disallowance of Rs. 7,500 representing the statutory fee paid in connection with the application to raise the authorised share capital. The second part relates to Rs. 500 representing the application fee paid for issue of bonus shares. So far as the expenditure incurred in connection with raising of the authorised share capital is concerned, there is a judgment of this court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]140ITR272(Cal) , wherein it was held, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., In re AIR 1921 Bom 391, that the result of the expenditure was to change the income-earning apparatus or structure. The finding of fact made by the Tribunal was that the expenditure had changed the capital base of the company. The capital base was reinforced on a permanent basis. This was the main purpose of the expenditure. In view of that, it was held that the change in the income-earning apparatus or structure was brought about by raising additional capital. The expenditure incurred for that purpose had to be treated as capital expenditure. The judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]165ITR678(Cal) , where it was held that the fees paid to the Registrar of Companies in connection with the increase of the authorised capital of a company was capital expenditure and hence not allowable under Section 37.

10. In that view of the matter, the first part of question No. 1 must be held to be capital expenditure. The second part relates to the application fee paid for issue of bonus shares. By issue of bonus shares, the capital structure of the company is not changed at all. A part of the reserves of the company has been capitalised. Both from the point of view of the company and from the point of view of the shareholder, no significant change really comes about as a result of issue of bonus shares. The effect of the issue of bonus shares has been explained by the Supreme Court of the United States of America quoting from an earlier decision in the case of FAsner v. Macomber [1920] 252 US 189. The observation was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. : [1964]52ITR567(SC) , where the question of valuation of bonus shares was considered. In that case, Hidayatullah J. explained the consequences of issue of bonus shares. He observed at page 579 that, 'in other words, by the issue of bonus shares pro rata, which ranked pari passu with the existing shares, the market price was exactly halved, and divided between the old and this bonus shares. This will ordinarily be the case but not when the shares do not rank pari passu and we shall deal with that case separately. When the shares rank pari passu, the result may be stated by saying that what the shareholder held as a whole rupee coin is held by him, after the issue of bonus shares, in two 50 paise coins. The total value remains the same, but the evidence of that value is not in one certificate, but in two'. Hidayatullah J. explained the result of issue of bonus shares in the following words at page 578 : 'The floating capital used in the company which formerly consisted of subscribed capital and the reserves now becomes the subscribed capital'.

11. On the issue of bonus shares, a portion of reserves of the company have to be transferred and shown as subscribed capital. This has nothing to do with the capital structure of the company. The profit-making apparatus remains the same. There is no addition or alteration to the profit-making apparatus. The total funds available with the company will remain the same. As a result of the issue of bonus shares, there will be no change in the capital structure of the company.

12. Therefore, the questions are answered as follows :

Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 916/(Cal) of 1986 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 962/ (Cal) of 1986 is answered by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,500 representing fees paid in connection with the application to raise the authorised share capital, but the Tribunal was, however, right in holding that Rs. 500 representing the application fees paid for issue of bonus shares were not capital expenditure. Question No. 2 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

13. There will be no order as to costs.

Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.

14. I agree.


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