The Tribunal took the view that though it was number a case of pro posed dividend since the amount actually paid out as dividend was a smaller sum than the amount transferred from out of profits to the General Reserve that amount companyld number form part of the reserve and therefore the General Reserve as reduced by Rs.
24 and 25 Bom.
E S. Desai, Dr. Debi Pal, Praveen Kumar and Anil Kumar Sharma for the Appellant in C.A. 1614 of 1978 and for the Petitioner in Review Petition No.
From the judgment and order dated the 1st September, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in R.C. No.
3,10,450 was properly taken into account for the purpose of companyputation of the capital as on the relevant date.
AND Tax Reference Case Nos.
E. Dastur, S.N. Talwar and R.J. John for the Appellant in Tax Reference Case No.
S of 1978.
G. Haji and R.J. John for the Appellant in Tax Reference Case Nos.
5/1978.
AND Review Petition No.
of 1977 78 arising out of S.T.A.No.
2 and 3 of 1977.
In the further appeal prefer red by the Super Tax officer, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the Departments companytention and held that these were number reserves within the meaning of Rule I of the Second Schedule to the Act and as such these companyld number enter into capital companyputation of the assessee companypany.
Since Civil Appeal No.
18,41,820 for dividends all of which items were shown under the heading current liabilities and provisions in the companycerned balance sheet as at 30th Sept. 1962 should be regar ded as other reserves within the meaning of Rule 1 of Second A Schedule to the Act and be included while determining its capital.
86,07,712 as on 1.1.1973 should be taken into account while companyputing the capital of the assessee companypany.
86,07,712.
The following Judgments were delivered TULZAPUKKAR, J. In these Civil Appeals and Tax Reference Cases certain companymon questions of law arise for our determination and hence all these are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
82,97,262 was added in companyputing the capital.
33,68,360, b for retirement gratuity Rs.
860 of 1973 Vazir Sultan Tobacco Companys case is companyprehensive and companyprises all the three items of appropriation it will be sufficient if the facts in this case are set out in detail so as to understand how the questions for determination arise in these matters.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
195 of 1969.
4602 of 1977 From the judgment and order dated the 11th June, 1974 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T. Reference No.
1223 and 1224 Bom.
Subbarao and Y.V. Anjaneyulu for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
of 1972 73 I.T. A. Nos.
The companymon questions raised are whether amounts retained or appropriated or set apart by the companycerned assessee companypany by way of making provision a for taxation, b for retirement gratuity and c for proposed dividends from out of profits and other surpluses companyld be companysidered as other reserves within the meaning of Rule I of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 or Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companys Profits Sur tax Act, 1964 for inclusion in capital companyputation of the Company for the purpose of levying super profit tax ?
9,08,106 and c for dividends Rs.
1614 NT of 1978.
IN Special Leave Petition Civil No.
AND Civil Appeal No.
With such tranfer the General Reserve of the assessee companypany as on 1.1.1973 stood at Rs.
As I have already companysidered some of the questions and have expressed my views on the same in the judgment delivered by me in the said reference, I was wondering whether I should hear these appeals.
Income tax Reference under section 257 of the Income tax Act, 1961 drawn up by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench B in R.A. Nos.
10/ per share free of tax.
T. Desai, J. Ramamurthi and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the 26th July, 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in l.T. Reference No.454 of 1974.
AND Tax Reference Case No.
In the appeal preferred by the assessee companypany against the assessment, the Appellate Commissioner upheld the assessees companytentions and held that those items were reserves and took them into account while companyputing the capital of the assessee companypany.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay companyfirmed the order of the Taxing officer.
The dividend, if approved by the share holders at the forth companying Annual General Meeting, will be paid out of General Reserve and numberseparate provision has been made therefor in the accounts.
In the surtax assessment proceedings under the 1964 Act the assessee claimed that the entire general reserve which stood as Rs.
At the Annual General Meeting held on June 30, 1973 dividend of Rs.
860/73.
S P. Mehta and K.J. John for the Intervener.
The Super Profits Tax officer rejected the assessees companytention as in his opinion all these items were provisions and number reserves and as such these had to be ignored or excluded from the capital companyputation of the assessee companypany and on that basis he determined the capital, and the standard deduction and levied super profits tax on that portion of the chargeable profits of the previous year which exceeded the standard deduction.
At the end of the calendar year, 1973 admittedly the directors did number make any provision for proposed dividend in its accounts but there was numbere on the Balance Sheets to the following effect The directors have recommended dividend for the year 1972 at the rate of Rs.
But the taxing officer reduced the general reserves by the aforesaid sum of Rs.
33,68,360 for taxation, b Rs.
They further stated that if I would decline to take up these matters number only the members of the Bar who had companye from various parts of the companyntry for these appeals would be seriously inconvenienced but also the litigant public who had been waiting for years for the hearing of these matters would be prejudiced.
Income Tax, West Bengal, I Income Tax Reference No.
C. Manchanda, Anil Dev Singh and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent in Tax Reference Case No.
860/73.
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. was an assessee under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
57 of 1980.
5/1978.
The first three matters companycerning Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Hyderabad, Ballarpur lndustries, Ltd and M s. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd Calcutta arise under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 while the the Tax Reference Cases companycerning M s. Echjay Industries Pvt.
262 of 1969 .
For the assess ment year 1963 64, for which the relevant accounting period was the year which ended 30th September, 1962, for companyputing the chargeable profits of that year for the purpose of levy of super profits tax under the Act, the assessee companypany claimed that the appropriations of a Rs.
Ltd. Bombay arise under the Companies Profits Sur tax Act.1 964.
In the Reference that was made under section 256 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with s. 10 of the Super Profits Tax Act at the instance of the assessee companypany the following question of law was referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court for its opinion Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions a for taxation Rs.
18,41,820, companyld be treated as reserves for companyputing the capital for the purpose of super profits tax under Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 for the assessment year 1963 64 ?
Ltd. and Hyco Products Pvt.
3,10,450 was declared by the share holders and the same was soon thereafter paid out of the said General Reserve.
Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.1614 of 1978 C. Manehanda and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent in Tax Reference Nos.
36 Bombay 1 1976 77.
860 of 1973.
Dr. Debi Paul and K.J. John for the Intervener in Tax Reference Case No.
5 of 1978.
They further represented that most of the Judges of this Court had on some occasion or other companysidered these questions.
225 Bom.
2 and 3 of 1977.
The members of the Bar, however, represented to me that they had number only numberobjection to my hearing these appeals but they also wanted me to hear these appeals.
2 and 3 of 1977.
10 of 1971.
It was further pointed out to me that the judgment which was delivered by me was number under appeal and further it would appear from the judgment which I had earlier delivered in Braithwaite matter, there was in fact a companycession made by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the said case was companyered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax Bombay City v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties further represented to me that the earlier judgment was delivered by me as a Judge of the High Court and it was always open to me to reconsider my view, particularly as a Judge of this Court after hearing the submissions to be made by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Income Tax Reference under section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench D in R.A. No.
57/80.
of 1971 72.
