Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1978]112ITR334(Bom)
..... he invited our attention to the position arising under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, and the rules contained in the second schedule framed for the purpose of computing the capital of company for the purpose of surtax, and he pointed out that in commissioner of income-tax v. ..... joshi appearing for the revenue has contended before us that the real object and the propose for which rules for computing the capital of a company for the purpose of the super profits tax act had been framed ought to be borne in mind while interpreting the relevant rule, bring rule 2 in the instant case. ..... and for issuance of bonus shares, if the question is to be considered in the light of language employed by rule 2 contained in the second schedule to the 1963 act, it will appear clear that by reason by the issuance of such bonus shares the 'paid up share capital' of a company could be said to have been increased; but under rule 3 of the 1964 act it is difficult to say in such a case that 'the capital of a company as computed in accordance with the foregoing rules of this schedule is increased by any amount'. ..... ' rule 3 contained in the second schedule of the 1964 act, so far as is material, runs thus : 'where after the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year the capital of a company as computed in accordance with the foregoing rules of this schedule is increased by any amount.........' 9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1993]200ITR318(SC); 1993Supp(3)SCC258
..... sums of rs 3,20,000 for the assessment year 1964-65, rs 3,48,943 for the assessment year 1965-66, and rs 4,62,609 for the assessment year 1966-67, representing dividend reserves ..... of the case the tribunal was justified in holding that the sums of rs 98,730 for the assessment year 1964-65, rs 1,10,000 for the assessment year 1965-66 and rs 81,000 for the assessment year 1966-67, representing provisions for gratuity were includible in computing the capital of the assessee company under rule 1 of schedule ii of companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 for the purpose of surtax?2) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in holding that the ..... 152 of 1975 which related to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-1966 and 1966-67. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]198ITR650(Guj)
..... of assessment proceedings, under section 6(2) of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed that the two loans qualified to be included in the capital of the company for the purpose of surtax. ..... officer accepted the claim of the assessee and, while computing the capital of the assessee-company under the second schedule to the act for the purpose of arriving at the statutory deduction, included the outstanding amount of rs. ..... he also pointed out that the capital assets of the assessee-company had increased after the assessee obtained the said two loans and thus there could be no doubt that the moneys borrowed by the assessee-company from the bank were utilised for the purpose of creation of ..... the tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-company that there was a subsequent oral agreement between the assessee-company and the bank under which the loans were made repayable beyond the period ..... the board of directors of the assessee-company passed a resolution at its meeting held on july 30, 1964, deciding to borrow the term loan ..... subject to the other provisions contained in this schedule, the capital of the company shall be the aggregate of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, ..... advanced to the assessee-company on november 27, 1964. ..... the terms and conditions on which the said amount was advanced by the bank to the assessee-company was executed on november 24, 1964. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Mad)457; [2003]260ITR419(Mad)
..... matter arises under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964. ..... it was assessed under the companies (profits) surtax act, (the act) for the assessment year 1976-77 on september 4, ..... the assessment under the companies (profits) surtax act was thereafter rectified on march 13, 1988, and tax of ..... 1,42,924 which has been assessed under the surtax act under the order dated march 30, 1988, had been fully adjusted from the refund which was then due to the assessee, the order made on november 20, 1990, proceeded to state that interest ..... whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the surtax demand continued to exist from the original assessment even though the final liability to tax had resulted as a consequence of revision of income-tax assessment ..... case of vikrant tyres : [2001]247itr821(sc) , the court also referred to the taxation laws (continuation and validation of recovery proceedings) act, 1964, more particularly section 3 thereof. ..... case of vikrant tyres : [2001]247itr821(sc) , it was held by the court that (page 826): 'it is settled principle in law that the courts while construing revenue acts have to give a fair and reasonable construction to the language of a statute without leaning to one side or the other, meaning thereby that no tax or levy can be imposed on a subject by an act for parliament without the words of the statute clearly showing an intention to lay the burden on the subject. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]174ITR709(AP)
..... ' the question arises under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964. ..... under the companies (profits) surtax act, the relevant date with reference to which the capital of a company has to be determined is the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year - which means that, for the assessment year 1966-67, it is october 1, 1964, and, for the assessment year 1967-68, it is october 1, 1965. ..... is appropriated without resorting to any scientific basis, such appropriation would also be a provision intended to meet a known liability, though a contingent one, for, the expression 'liability' occurring in clause 7 (1) (a) of part iii of the sixth schedule to the companies act includes any expenditure contracted for and arising under a contingent liability; but if the sum so appropriated is shown to be in excess of the sum required to meet the estimated liability (discounted present value on a scientific basis) it is only the ..... the capital base of a company for the purpose of the surtax act has to be determined in accordance with the rules contained in the second schedule to the act. ..... the assessee claimed that these two amounts should be taken into account and included in the capital base of the company for the purpose of the surtax act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]186ITR192(AP)
..... this is a consolidated reference under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 ..... relating to the deduction under chapter vi-a of the income-tax act falling under section 80m of the income-tax act, which is intimately connected with the point arising for consideration in the present case regarding computation of profits under the surtax act, has a chequered history. ..... purpose of computation of chargeable profits under the surtax act, the assessee claimed that from out of the total income computed under the income-tax act, the gross dividends of ..... if the amendment retrospectively made under the income-tax act through section 80aa could be considered as declaratory of the existing law, we do not see why the law as set out after the insertion of the explanation in the surtax act could likewise be not considered as declaratory of the ..... to make a reference to the amendment brought about in the surtax act itself by incorporating an explanation with effect from april 1, 1981 ..... provides that income by way of dividends from an indian company or a company which has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within india shall be excluded from the total income for the purpose of ascertaining chargeable profits. ..... provided that in computing the chargeable profits of a previous year, the total income computed for that year under the income-tax act shall be adjusted as specified therein .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1995)124CTR(Ker)23; [1995]214ITR770(Ker)
..... case : [1973]92itr65(ker) , in the matter of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, this court was dealing with an undisputed factual matrix. ..... is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for gratuity is 'reserve' under the second schedule to the surtax act, 1964, and the same should be taken into account in the computation of capital for the purpose of the surtax act ?'2. ..... in vazir sultan's case : [1981]132itr559(sc) considered the common question as to whether the amounts retained or appropriated or set apart by the concerned assessee-company by way of making provision, (a) for taxation, (b) for retirement gratuity, and (c) for proposed dividends from out of profits and other surpluses, could be considered as 'other reserves' and the consequences of their inclusion in the capital computation or otherwise. ..... automatically become a reserve and somebody possessing the requisite authority must clearly indicate that a portion thereof has been earmarked or separated from the general mass of profits with a view to constituting it either a general reserve or a specific reserve ; (b) the surrounding circumstances should make it apparent that the amountso earmarked or set apart is in fact a reserve to be utilised in future for a specific purpose and on a ..... officer did not take this item placed in the category of 'reserve' in computing the capital for the purpose of the second schedule to the surtax act, holding that this was not a 'reserve'. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(P& H)371; [1998]231ITR726(P& H)
..... the appellate assistant commissioner as well as the tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, taking the view that the amount of surtax payable by the assessee under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, was not allowable as a deduction.a division bench of this court examined a similar question about the deductibility of surtax in highway cycle industries ltd. v. ..... whether the income-tax appellate tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of surtax payable by it in pursuance of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, in arriving at the taxable income ?2. ..... : [1995]215itr165(sc) , has examined the decision of the gujarat high court in patel brothers and company's case : [1977]106itr424(guj) , and has observed that the wide observations and the elaborate guidelines, given in the gujarat high court's decision, were in excess of the broad ..... this court took the view that surtax was not deductible under the act.since the matter has been settled after examination, the question is answered in the affirmative, ..... that was a case where the assessee-company, which conducted horse-races, had incurred expenditure under the head 'expenditure towards the supply of refreshments, lunch, liquors, ..... 270 had been incurred during a conference held by the assessee-company at goa from march 21, 1976, to march 25, 1976. ..... assessing officer, following his order for the preceding assessment year, held that surtax was not an admissible deduction under the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2002]254ITR560(Delhi)
1. the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, read with the provisions of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, by the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench :'whether, the order of the tribunal that when once the return was filed under one or the other of the three sub-sections in section 5 of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, no penalty is attracted under section 9 of the said act is legally correct ?'2. we had the occasion to deal with a similar case in surtax reference no. 2 of 1982 (see cit v. international airport authority of india : [2002]254itr159(delhi) . following the view expressed in that case, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]258ITR179(Raj)
..... a reserve for bad and doubtful debts was not a provision but a reserve liable to be computed for the purpose of ascertaining the capital deployed for the business under the relevant provisions of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, and, therefore, no question of law arose from the order of the tribunal.4. ..... case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the issue arising from the order of the inspecting assistant commissioner (assessment) was highly debatable and it is clearly beyond the purview of section 13 of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 ?'3. ..... rise to this application are that the respondent is a company liable to surtax under the act of 1964. ..... the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the income-tax act read with the provisions of the act of 1964, by accepting the claim to the said deduction for computing the capital deployed during the previous year relevant to the ..... the provisions of section 13 of the act of 1964 are akin to section 154 of the income-tax act conferring jurisdiction on the concerned authority who has made any order under the act to rectify a mistake which is apparent ..... commissioner vide its order dated august 16, 1997, invoked section 13 of the act of 1964 for withdrawal of the allowance of deduction as rs. ..... of law and its effect was not a mistake apparent from the record, the inspecting assistant commissioner could not have resorted to his power to rectify the assessment order by invoking section 13 of the act of 1964.10. .....
Tag this Judgment!