AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mishra, J.—The instant reference has come up at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by s.
18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter referred as ""the Surtax Act"". The question referred to us for the opinion of the Court is
:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 51,00,000 standing to the credit of
debenture redemption reserve should be taken into account in the capital computation for levy of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act,
1964?
The assessee is a public limited company. It created a debenture redemption reserve of money in a sum of Rs. 51 lakhs but while completing the
assessment for surtax for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the ITO rejected the contention of the assessee that the reserve created for debenture redemption
should also be treated as part of the capital and appropriate relief given in arriving at the standard deduction, mainly on the ground that the
assessee had created the reserve for the purpose of meeting a specific liability, viz., repayment of debenture loan, and, consequently, it could not
be regarded as a reserve. On appeal, the CIT(A) held a different view According to him, the amount of money set apart for repayment of
debentures was a reserve and not a provision. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Department''s appeal.
Before we advert to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for the above view, we may scan the relevant provisions of the law and prospect into
the judicial pronouncements so that we may reach a proper and correct delineation of the area in which the Surtax Act operates. The Surtax Act
was enforced to impose a special tax on the profits of companies in respect of so much of their chargeable profits of the previous years as
exceeded the statutory deduction at the rate or rates specified in the Third Schedule of the Act for every assessment year commencing on and from
the first day of April, 1964. ""Chargeable profits"" was defined under s. 2(5) of the Surtax Act as the total income of an assessee, by whom surtax
or any other sum of money was payable under the Act computed under the IT Act, 1961, for any previous year or years and adjusted in
accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Act. The ""statutory deduction"" for the purpose of the charge as contemplated under s.
4 of the Act had a special definition to mean an amount equal to ten per cent of the capital of the company as computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Second Schedule, or an amount of two hundred thousand rupees, whichever is greater, provided that where the previous year is
longer or shorter than a period of twelve months, the amount of ten per cent, or of two hundred thousand rupees shall increase or decrease
proportionately and provided further that where a company had different previous years in respect of its income, profits and gains, the increase or
decrease is to be calculated with reference to the length of the previous year of the longest duration. The First Schedule contained rules for
computing the chargeable profits and provided that in computing the chargeable profits of a previous year, the total income computed for that year
under the IT Act shall be adjusted by excluding from the total income, profits and gains and other sums falling under the various clauses of r. 1
which included :
(i) any income chargeable under the IT Act under the head ''Capital gains'';
(ii) any compensation or other payment as was/is referred to in cl. (ii) of s. 28 of the IT Act;
(iii) Profits and gains of any business of life insurance;
(iv) any income referred to in sub s. (2) of s. 41 of the IT Act;
(v) Income chargeable under the IT Act under the head ''Interest on Securities'' derived from any security of the Central Government issued or
declared to be Income Tax free or from any security of a State Government issued Income Tax free, the Income Tax whereon is payable by the
State Government;
(vi) an amount equal to fifty per cent of the sum with reference to which a deduction is allowable to the company under the provisions of s. 80G of
the IT Act;
(vii) 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;
(viii) income by way of royalties received from Government or a local authority or any Indian concern;
(ix) in the case of a non-resident company which has not made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within
India, its income by way of any interest or fees for rendering technical services received from Government or a local authority or any Indian
concern;
(x) the amount of any deduction from the Income Tax chargeable on the total income allowed under the annual Finance Act in connection with
export of any goods or merchandise out of India or the sale by a manufacture of any articles to any person who exported them out of India.
(xi) In the case of a banking company, any sum which, during the previous year is transferred by it to a reserve fund under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the
Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), or is deposited by it with the Reserve Bank of India under sub cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 11
of that Act, not exceeding the amount required under the aforesaid provisions to be so transferred or deposited, or any sum transferred by it during
the previous year to any reserves in India including reserves not shown as such in its published balance sheet in so far as the sums transferred to
such reserves are attributable to income chargeable to tax under the IT Act and have not been allowed as a deduction in computing its total income
under that Act, and in so far as the aggregate of such sums does not exceed the highest of the aggregate of such sums, if any, so transferred during
any one of the three years prior to the previous year, whichever is higher is to be excluded from the total income computed for the year under the
IT Act.
The balance of the total income so arrived at after making the exclusions as above was, according to r. 2, reduced by the amount of Income Tax
payable by the company in respect of its total income under the provisions of the IT Act after making allowance for any relief, rebate or deduction
in respect of Income Tax to which the company may be entitled under the provisions of the said Act or the annual Finance Act, and after excluding
from such amount, the amount of Income Tax, if any, payable by the company in respect of any income chargeable under the head ""Capital gains
or covered as compensation or other payment as in cl. (ii) of s. 28 of the IT Act, profits and gains of any business of life insurance or income by
way of dividends from an Indian company or a company which had made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of
dividends within India and by the amount of Income Tax payable by the company under the provisions of the annual Finance Act with reference to
the relevant amount of distributions of dividends by it, that is, assigned to it in the Finance Act of the relevant year and the amount of Income Tax, if
any payable by the company under s. 104 of the IT Act. In the case of a company which had been charged to tax in a country outside India on any
portion of its income, profits and gains included in its total income as computed under the IT Act, the balance of the total income arrived at after
making exclusions mentioned above, was further reduced by the tax actually paid in respect of such income, profits and gains in the said country in
accordance with the laws in force in that country after allowance of every relief due under the said laws provided that the assessee produced
evidence of the fact of payment of the said tax in that country.
Rule 3 contemplated increase in the net amount of income calculated in accordance with the procedure as found by the aggregate of (i) the amount
of any interest payable by the company in respect of the debentures referred to in cl. (iv) or moneys referred to in cl. (v) of r. 1 of the Second
Schedule for the previous year relevant to the assessment year allowed as a deduction in computing its total income; and (ii) the expenditure
incurred on account of commission, entertainment and advertisement, to the extent such expenditure, in the opinion of the ITO, is excessive having
regard to the circumstances of the case, but for holding such expenditure to be excessive the previous authority of the IAC was necessary.
The Second Schedule which contained rules for computation of the capital of a company for the purpose of surtax deduction provided, inter
alia, that the capital of a company shall be the aggregate of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, of
-
(i) its paid-up share capital;
(ii) its reserves, if any, created under the proviso (b) to cl. (vib) of sub-s. (2) of s. 10 of the Indian IT Act, 1922, or under sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the
IT Act, 1961;
(iii) its other reserves as reduced by the amounts credited to such reserves as have been allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the
company for the purposes of the India IT Act, 1922, or the IT Act, 1961;
(iv) the debentures, if any, issued by it to the public Provided that according to the terms and conditions of issue of such debentures, they are not
redeemable before the expiry of a period of seven years from the date of issue thereof; and
(v) any moneys borrowed by it from Government or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India or the Industrial Credit and Investment
Corporation of India or any other financial institution which the Central Government may notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette or any banking
institution (not being a financial institution notified as aforesaid) or any person in a country outside India :
Provided that such moneys are borrowed for the creation of a capital asset in India and the agreement under which such moneys are borrowed
provided for the repayment thereof during a period of not less than seven years.
The Explanation appended to r. 1, which contained the above, provided for the removal of doubts as follows :
It is hereby declared that any amount standing to the credit of any account in the books of a company as on the first day of the previous year
relevant to the assessment year which is of the nature of item (5) or item (6) or item (7) under the heading ''Reserves and Surplus'' or of any item
under the heading ''Current Liabilities and Provisions'' in the column relating to ''Liabilities'' in the ''Form of Balance Sheet'' given in Part I of Sch VI
to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), shall not be regarded as a reserve for the purposes of computation of the capital of a company under the
provisions of this Schedule.
Items (5), (6) and (7) under the heading ""Reserves and Surplus"" in Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, were/are,
(5) surplus, i.e., balance in the profit and loss account after providing for proposed allocations, namel : Dividend, bonus or reserves;
(6) Proposed additions to reserves;
(7) Sinking funds.
The items included in the column of ""Liabilities"" and the form of balance sheet given in Part I of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, were
obviously intended to be incorporated in accordance with the instructions as were/are indicated in a separate column in the Schedule and in
accordance with the requirements as to profit and loss account as were/are in Part II of the Companies Act/Rules. The Explanation has thus left for
computing the capital of a company for the purpose of surtax reserves (i) Capital reserve; (ii) Capital redemption reserve; (iii) Share premium
account, and (iv) other reserve specifying the nature of each reserve and the amount in respect thereof for the purpose of computation of the
capital of a company under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act.
The reserve, that is, the amount equal to 75 per cent of the development rebate to be actually allowed debited to the profit and loss account of the
relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee during the period of eight years next following for the
purposes of the business of the assessee other than for distribution by way of dividends or profits or for remittances outside India as profits or for
the creation of any asset outside India as mentioned in sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the IT Act, 1961, and a similar reserve as contemplated under the
proviso (b) to cl. (vib) of sub s. (2) of s. 10 of the Indian IT Act, 1922, are, however, not affected by the Explanation and are included in the
capital of the company for the purposes of surtax.
Thus, under the scheme of the law, the reserve satisfying the requirements of sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the IT Act, 1961, and its equivalent provision
in the 1922 Act and the reserve which qualified as capital redemption reserve, share premium account and other reserves specifying the nature of
each reserve and the amount in respect thereof less debit balance in the profit and loss account, if any, were/are available as capital besides the
paid-up share capital, the debentures and any moneys borrowed from Government or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India or the Industrial
Credit and Investment Corporation of India or any other financial institution which the Central Government had/has notified in the Official Gazette
or any banking institution, not being a financial institution notified as above, or any person in a country outside India, provided that such money
were borrowed for the creation of a capital asset in India and the agreement under which such moneys are borrowed provided for the repayment
thereof during a period of not less than seven years, were/are available for statutory deduction as contemplated under s. 4 of the Surtax Act, for
determining the chargeable profits for surtax.
Part III of Sch. VI of the Companies Act, 1956, contains rules of interpretation. Rule 7 therein reads as follow : ""7(1) For the purposes of Parts
I and II of this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) the expression ''provision'' shall, subject to sub-cl. (2) of this clause, mean any amount written off or retained by way of providing for
depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be
determined with substantial accuracy;
(b) the expression ''reserves'' shall not, subject as aforesaid, include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation,
renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability;
(c) the expression ''capital reserve'' shall not include any amount regarded as free for distribution through the profit and loss account; and the
expression ''revenue reserve'' shall mean any reserve other than a capital reserve; and in this sub-clause the expression ''liability'' shall include all
liabilities in respect of expenditure contracted for and all disputed or contingent liabilities.
(2) Where, -
(a) any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, not being an amount written
off in relation to fixed assets before the commencement of this Act; or
(b) any amount retained by way of providing for any known liability; is in excess of the amount which in the opinion of the directors is reasonably
necessary for the purpose, the excess shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as a reserve and not as a provision.
This rule suggests that ""reserve"" shall not include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in
value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability, that is, it exactly excludes what is determined as a provision. Clause (b) has
left one area uncovered, we shall presently see, which has provided to the Revenue a basis to argue that any amount retained by way of providing
for any known liability would mean any amount set apart to meet any present as well as future liability provided the liability is identified. Rule 7(1)
(a) has qualified the words ""known liability"" with the words ""of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy"". Those words
are not included to qualify the same expression ""known liability"" in cl. (b) of the said sub-rule.
With such legislative endeavours to circumscribe the area of reserve for the purpose of inclusion in the capital for the purposes of knowing the
quantum of statutory deduction and accordingly to compute chargeable profits, for the purposes of the Surtax Act, one could think that persons
who have been regularly dealing with trading accounts of companies found no difficulty in specifying such reserve, which qualified for the said
purpose. There has, however, been no let to the confusion and cases after cases came up before the Courts for demarcation of the area which will
comprise the field of ""provision"" and the area which will comprise the field of ""reserve"".
In Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, , the Supreme
Court has noticed that (1) before any amount or sum qualifies for inclusion in capital computation of a company, two conditions are required to be
fulfilled - (a) that the amount or sum must be a ""reserve"", and (b) the same must not have been allowed in computing the company''s profits for the
purposes of the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act; (2) the expression ""reserve"" has not been defined in the Act and, therefore, one would be inclined to
resort to its ordinary natural meaning as given in the dictionary but the dictionary meaning, though useful in itself, may not be sufficient, for, the
dictionaries do not make any distinction between the two concepts ""reserve"" and ""provision"" while giving their primary meanings whereas in the
context of the legislation, that is, the Surtax Act, a clear distinction between the two is implied; (3) the provisions made against anticipated losses
and contingencies are charges against profits and are accordingly taken into account against gross receipts in the profit and loss account and the
balance sheet; (4) Reserves are appropriations of profits, the assets by which they are represented being retained to form part of the capital
employed in the business; (5) ""provisions"" are usually shown in the balance sheet by way of deductions from the assets in respect of which they are
made whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietor''s interest; (6) the preparation of the balance sheet as well as
the profit and loss account in the prescribed forms and laying the same before the shareholders at the annual general meeting are statutory
requirements which the company has to observe. The form of balance sheet as given in part I of Sch. VI contains separate heads of ""Reserves and
surplus"" and ""Current liabilities and provisions"" and under sub-head ""Reserves"" different kinds of reserves are indicated and under sub-head
Provisions"" different types of provisions are indicated.
Referring to Part III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan''s case (supra) has said :
Part III is the interpretation clause setting out the definitions of various expressions occurring in Parts I and II and the expressions ''reserve'',
''provision'' and ''liability'' have been defined in cl. 7 thereof. . . .
On a plain reading of cl. 7(1)(a) and (b) and cl. 7(2) above, it will appear clear that though the term ''provision'' is defined positively by specifying
what it means, the definition of ''reserve'' is negative in form and not exhaustive in the sense that it only specifies certain amounts which are not to
be included in the term ''reserve''. In other words the effect of reading the two definitions together is that if any retention or appropriation of a sum
falls within the definition of ''provision'' it can never be a reserve but it does not follow that if the retention or appropriation is not a provision it is
automatically a reserve and the question will have to be decided having regard to the true nature and character of the sum so retained or
appropriated depending on several factors including the intention with which and the purpose for which such retention or appropriation has been
made because the substance of the matter is to be regarded and in this context the primary dictionary meaning of the term ''reserve'' may have to
be availed of. But it is clear beyond doubt that if any retention or appropriation of a sum is not a provision, that is to say, if it is not designated to
meet depreciation, renewals or diminution in the value of assets or any known liability, the same is not necessarily a reserve.....
Having regard to the type of definitions of the two concepts which are to be found in cl. 7 of Part III, the proper approach in our view would be
first to ascertain whether the particular retention or appropriation of a sum falls within the expression ''provision'' and if it does, then clearly the
concerned sum will have to be excluded from the computation of capital, but in case the retention or appropriation of the sum is not a provision as
defined, the question will have to be decided by reference to the true nature and character of the sum so retained or appropriated having regard to
several factors as mentioned above and if the concerned sum is in fact a reserve then it will be taken into account for the computation of capital.
The Supreme Court in the abovesaid case has dealt with three items of appropriations :
(1) provision for taxation;
(2) provision for retirement gratuity;
(3) provision for proposed dividends in the case of concerned assessee-companies.
With respect to provision for taxation, the Supreme Court has referred to one of its earlier judgments in the case of Kesoram Industries and
Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (Central) Calcutta, and stated :
The ratio of this decision clearly suggests that the appropriation of the amounts set apart by the assessee-companies before us for taxation would
constitute a provision made by them to meet a known and existing liability and as such the concerned amounts would not be includible in the capital
computation.
With respect to the item of appropriation made for retirement gratuity, the Supreme Court has said :
Ordinarily an appropriation to gratuity reserve will have to be regarded as a provision made for a contingent liability, for, under a scheme framed
by a company the liability to pay gratuity to its employees on determination of employment arises only when the employment of the employee is
determined by death, incapacity, retirement or resignation - an event (cessation of employment) certain to happen in the service career of every
employee; moreover, the amount of gratuity payable is usually dependent on the employee''s wages at the time of determination of his employment
and the number of years of service put in by him and the liability accrues and enhances with the completion of every year of service; but the
company can work out on an actuarial valuation its estimated liability (i.e., discounted present value of the liability under the scheme on a scientific
basis) and make a provision for such liability not all at once but spread over a number of years. It is clear that, if by adopting such scientific method
any appropriation is made, such appropriation will constitute a provision representing fairly accurately a known and existing liability for the year in
question; if, however, an ad hoc sum 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 cl. 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 excess that will have to be
regarded as a reserve under cl. 7(2) of Part III to the Sixth Schedule.
After referring to the earlier cases on the subject, viz., Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, and The Workmen of William
Jacks and Co. Ltd., Madras, Represented by the William Jacks and Company Employees'' Union Vs. Management of William Jacks and Co.
Ltd., Madras, and quoting with approval the passage :
The provision for gratuity, furlough, salary, passage service and commission in the present case was all made in respect of existing and known
liabilities, though, in some cases, the amount could not be ascertained with accuracy. It was not a case where it was an anticipated loss or
anticipated expenditure which would arise in future. Such provision is, therefore, not a reserve at all and cannot be added back under item 2(c) of
the Second Schedule.
the Supreme Court remanded the case through the Tribunal to the taxing authority to decide the issue whether the concerned amount set apart and
transferred to gratuity reserve by the assessee-company was either a provision or a reserve and if the latter, to what extent in the light of the above
principles.
On the third item of appropriation by way of provision for the proposed dividends, the Supreme Court took notice of s. 217 of the Companies
Act, 1956, and pointed out that the directors of a company can merely recommend that a certain sum be paid as dividend but such
recommendation does not result in any obligation or liability; the obligation or liability to pay the dividend arises only when the shareholders at the
annual general meeting of the company decide to accept the recommendation and pass a resolution for the declaration of dividend, to hold :
All that follows from the above is that, in the instant cases, the appropriation of the concerned amount by the board of directors by way of
providing for proposed dividend would not constitute ''provisions'', for, the appropriations cannot be said to be by way of providing for any known
or existing liability, none having arisen on the date when the directors made the recommendation much less on the relevant date being the first day
of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. But, as stated earlier, this by itself would not automatically convert the
appropriations into ''reserves'', regard being had to the negative and non-exhaustive character of the definition of ''reserve'' given in cl. 7(1)(b) of
Part III of the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act. The question whether the concerned amounts in fact constituted ''reserves'', or not will have
to be decided by having regard to the true nature and character of the sums so appropriated depending on the surrounding circumstances,
particularly the intention with which and the purpose for which such appropriations had been made. . . .
According to the dictionaries, the applicable meaning of the word ''reserve'' is ''to keep for future use or enjoyment; to set apart for some purpose
or end in view; to keep in store for future as special use; to keep in reserve''. In other words, the word ''reserve'' as a noun in ordinary parlance
would mean ''something which is kept for future use or stored up for something or set apart for some purpose''. It cannot be disputed that a
reserve may be a general reserve or specific reserve and all that is required is that an amount should be kept apart for some purpose, either general
or specific.
The Supreme Court, however, posed the question whether the earmarking of a portion of profits by the board of directors of a company,
avowedly for the purpose of distributing dividend, would fall within the expression ""reserve"" occurring in r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super
Profits Tax Act, 1963, and observed :
For this purpose certain test indicated in some decisions of this Court will have to be considered.
The first of those cases noticed by the Supreme Court is Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City Vs. The Century Spinning and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which was concerned with computing the capital of the assessee-company under the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947. The
Supreme Court said :
The decision clearly lays down that the true nature and character of the appropriation must be determined with reference to the substance of the
matter; obviously this means that one must have regard to the intention with which and the purpose for which appropriation has been made, such
intention and purpose being gathered from the surrounding circumstances. In that behalf, the following aspects mentioned in the judgment provide
some guidelines : (a) a mass of undistributed profits cannot automatically become a reserve and the 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 as
a general reserve or a specific reserve, (b) the surrounding circumstances should make it apparent that the amount so earmarked or set apart is in
fact a reserve to be utilised in future for a specific purpose and on a specific occasion, and (c) and clear conduct on the part of the directors in
setting apart a sum from out of the mass of undistributed profits avowedly for the purpose of distribution as dividend in the same year would run
counter to any intention of making that amount a reserve. It was because of these aspects obtained in the case that this Court took the view that
neither the sum of Rs. 5,08,637, nor the profits earned by the assessee during the period 1st Jan., 1946 to 1st April, 1946, constituted ''reserve''
within the meaning of r. 2(1) of the Second Schedule to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947.
The Court then considered two more decisions, one in First National City Bank vs . CIT : [1961]42ITR17(SC) and the other in The
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, which touched the subject of computation of capital under
r. 2(1) of the Second Schedule to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947. The Court, upon that, has said :
This Court in the first case held that the amount designated as ''undivided profits'' which was available for continuous future use of the business of
the bank was a part of the reserve and had to be taken into account while computing the capital under r. 2(1) of Sch. II to the Business Profits Tax
Act; similarly, in the second case the Court held that the amount which had been allocated to ''earned surplus'' which was intended for the purpose
of the business of the assessee-company and was used in subsequent years in business, represented ''reserves'' within the meaning of r. 2 of Sch. II
to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947. From these two decisions two aspects emerge very clearly. In the first place, the nomenclature accorded to
any particular fund which is set apart from out of the profits would not be material or decisive of the matter and, secondly, having regard to the
purpose of r. 2 of Sch. II to the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, if any amount set apart from out of the profits is going to make up the capital fund
of the assessee and would be available to the assessee for its business purposes, it would become a reserve liable to be included in the capital
computation of the assessee under that Act.
Reading some of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, that is s. 217, the Court has observed :
The aforesaid provisions read together clearly show that creating reserves out of the profits is a stage distinct in point of fact and anterior in point
of time to the stage of making recommendation for payment of dividend and the scheme of the provisions suggests that appropriation made by the
board of directors by way of recommending a payment of dividend cannot, in the nature of things, be a reserve.
In taking account of the true nature and character of the money set apart by a company, what is recommended by the Supreme Court is to see
whether such retention or appropriation by the company falls within the definition of ""provision"" and if it is so found, it can never be a reserve. The
question will still be to see whether the appropriation or setting apart of profits, the assets by which they are represented, is being retained to form
part of the capital employed in the business. The appropriation of any money set apart by way of providing for known or existing liability would
constitute a ""provision"". If it is in respect of a liability which is yet to accrue, it is not known when shall it accrue and what would be its approximate
quantum, it may be a ""reserve"" if it further satisfies that it has been earmarked for a purpose and separated from the general mass of profits to be
utilised in future for a specific purpose and on a specific occasion.
The Explanation appended to r. 1 to the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act has, in particular, referred to the nature of item (5) or item (6) or
item (7) under the heading ""Reserve and surplus"" in the form of balance sheet given in Part I of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and of any
item under the heading ""Liabilities"" in the said form to exclude such reserve from the capital computation and thus leave capital reserve, capital
redemption reserve, share premium account and other reserve specifying the nature of each reserve and the amount in respect thereof less debit
balance in the profit and loss account, if any, for capital computation for the purposes of the chargeable profit under the Act. So far as capital
reserve and capital redemption reserve are concerned, there can be little difficulty. Share premium account can also fall very close to them. It is in
respect of the other reserves less debit balance in the profit and loss account for which the nature of the reserves will have to be ascertained.
It will be unfair, however, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.''s (supra), to take the nomenclature given
by the company to the money reserved for any purpose, to give a finality to the character of such appropriation or setting apart of money and on
that alone to decide whether it is a reserve qualifying for capital computation. It should be an undivided profit and should not cover all the debit
balance in the profit and loss account; it should be available until expended for capital utilisation and the purpose for which it is set apart should be
either general or specific, it should not be any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.
We do not propose, in the instant case, to refer to every judgment of the High Courts or the Supreme Court on the subject, but the consensus
appears to us to be that the characteristics of a reserve ar :
(1) reserve or appropriation of profits which are retained to form part of the capital employed in the business;
(2) a reserve is not designed to meet any liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets known to exist at the date of the
balance sheet; and
(3) a reserve is something set apart for true use or enjoyment. And the characteristics of a provision are :
(a) It is made against anticipated losses and contingencies;
(b) It is a charge against profits;
(c) It is taken in the profit and loss account against gross receipts;
(d) It is an amount set aside out of profits designed to meet a liability or contingency or commitment or diminution in the value of assets known to
exist at the date of the balance sheet; and
(e) It is an amount set aside to provide for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.
We are, however, tempted to refer to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sijua (Jharriah)
Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which dealt with a reserve for debenture redemption in which the ratio decidendi or the principles laid down in Vazir
Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.''s case (supra) are reiterated and applied. The assessee created a reserve for contingencies according to the provisions
of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It contended that the said ""reserve"" was required to be appropriated for specific expenditure as provided for
in r. V of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. After referring to the contentions of the parties, the Calcutta High Court has
observed :
No facts could be ascertained from the order of the ITO or the AAC. It was submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal that the assessee-
company had issued 1,500 debentures of Rs. 100 each during the year, 1951. According to the terms of the debenture issue, the company was
required to redeem 60 debentures of the total of Rs. 60,000 every year. According to the Second Schedule to the debenture trust deed dt. 26th
July, 1951, the assessee was required to credit an amount of Rs. 60,000 every year to the debenture redemption account. It was explained that
every year, an amount of Rs. 60,000 was debited to the profit and loss account and credited to the debenture redemption reserve account. A
certificate signed by one of the directors had been furnished to state that payment of Rs. 60,000 every year to the debenture-holders was being
directly made by debiting the debenture account and crediting the bank. The certificate is also not made an annexure to the statement of the case.
The Tribunal in the operative part of its order held that it accepted the evidence produced before it and that the reserve was not created for the
purpose of paying debenture-holders and that the reserve was created to preserve the working capital.
Before us, the Revenue strongly contended that, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the impugned
amount was a reserve. It was submitted that an ad hoc figure of Rs. 60,000 was being debited to the debenture account and an ad hoc amount
cannot be said to be a reserve. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.,
Hyderabad and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, , in support of the contention that in this case, an ad hoc
appropriation has been made which cannot be termed a reserve. The Supreme Court observed : ''If however, an ad hoc sum is appropriated
without resorting to any scientific basis, such appropriation would be a provision intended to meet a known liability though a contingent one, for the
expression ''liability'' occurring in cl. 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''. It was further held by the Supreme Court that if the sum so appropriated is shown to be in excess of the sum
required to meet the estimated liability, it is only the excess that will have to be regarded as a reserve under cl. 7(2) of Part III of the Sixth
Schedule.
The Revenue also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-I Vs. Crompton
Engineering Co. P. Ltd., wherein the Madras High Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco''s case (supra)
held that ""ad hoc provision for gratuity cannot be regarded either as a provision or reserve and that a reserve must be consciously created and a
mere appropriation of accumulated profits, without more, would not answer the despcription of reserve."" and
The debenture trust deed dt. 26th July, 1951, is not available before us. It has not been annexed to the statement of the case. It is not known what
was the scientific basis of payment of Rs. 60,000 every year to debenture-holders and whether any excess provision is made every year. In the
absence of proper material touching on this crucial aspect, we are unable to decide the controversy. The matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal
who shall decide this controversy in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad and
Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, after ascertaining the necessary facts.
The Bombay High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., , has dealt with a case of gratuity
reserve and noted that it was necessary to know whether the appropriation made by the assessee towards gratuity reserve was based on any
actuarial valuation or was in the nature of appropriation of an ad hoc amount and followed the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Vazir
Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd''s case (supra) since there was no sufficient material on record to show one way or the other.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd, and a three-judge Bench
in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Vs. Elgin Mills Ltd., Kanpur, have dealt with the computation of capital and distinction between ""reserve
and ""provision"" under the Surtax Act. In Elgin Mills Ltd.''s case (supra), the Supreme Court has held in favour of the assessee that items shown as
investment reserve, rehabilitation reserve, capital reserve and depreciation reserve constituted reserves qualifying for computation in the capital for
purposes of surtax. The item shown as forfeited dividends, according to the Supreme Court, was not a reserve which qualified for the same. The
Court has pointed out the distinction between provision and reserve in these words :
As reiterated before, the distinction between ''provision'' and ''reserve'' is that while a ''provision'' is a charge on profits which are taken into
account in the gross receipts of the profit and loss account, a ''reserve'' is an appropriation of profit to provide for the asset which it represented.
In Saran Engineering Co. Ltd.''s case (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the High Court''s view that so far, in view of the findings that the
amount represented reserve and it was not earmarked for any existing liability for being utilised by the company, it must be held to be a reserve. An
item called the stocks and stores reserve, which did not represent any existing provision for existing liability to meet any specific contingency for
safeguarding against diminution in the value of the stocks and stores on any future occasion was also upheld as a reserve qualifying for computation
in the capital. The bad and doubtful debts reserve which was over and above the provision for bad and doubtful debts which provision was
reduced from the value of the assets and it was not the Revenue''s case that the provision for bad and doubtful debts provided was less than the
amount reasonably necessary to be provided, was held to constitute a reserve qualifying for computation in the capital. The Supreme Court has
remarked : ""It is not correct to state that by the very nomenclature, this was not a reserve. The true nature of the transaction has to be examined"".
The loan and insurance reserve, which was free from any burden and was not utilised for any purpose and was transferred to the general reserve,
the Supreme Court held, ""was rightly treated as a reserve which qualified for computation in the capital"". On the item called investment reserve,
which was created out of the surplus on the sale of investment which was not held by the respondent-company as its stock-in-trade, and which did
not have its origin in business profits and was transferred directly to the reserve account but was created prior to 1954 and was further credited in
1955 to 1957 out of the profits and sale of investments, the Supreme Court noticed :
In the later years, whenever a loss of a capital nature was incurred, it was debited to this account. It appears that at the time of creating this
reserve, the directors could not have possibly anticipated the losses which might occur in future but merely created a reserve so that losses which
do normally arise in the course of business might be adjusted against this amount. It appears, therefore, that this was a reserve created out of
capital profit. This reserve can rightly be treated as other reserves.
The Supreme Court reiterated its view expressed in Elgin Mills Ltd.''s case (supra) about capital reserve and held that the rehabilitation reserve and
stores reserve qualified for computation, the bad and doubtful debts reserve, on the facts above also qualified and disallowed the forfeited money
reserve and upheld the order of the Bombay High Court under which the Revenue''s application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, was rejected
except in relation to the reserve for special survey and observed as follows :
In view of the facts as recorded by the Tribunal and in the light of the principles settled by various decisions and reiterated by this Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 1665 of 1974, it is not necessary to call for any statement of the case and the High Court was right. It may be mentioned that where
the liability has actually arisen or is anticipated legitimately by the assessee though the quantum of the liability has not been determined, a fund to
meet such present liability cannot be treated as ''reserves''. A fund, however, created for payment of a liability which had not already arisen or
fallen due but is only a provision with regard to the sum that might become liable to be paid is ''other reserves'' within the meaning of r. 1 of the
Second Schedule and should be taken into account in computing the capital of the company for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax
Act, 1964.
In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals (Formerly Philips India Ltd.), , the Calcutta High Court held that the
debenture redemption reserve in the said case fulfilled the test of a reserve because (a) the reserve had been created out of appropriation from
profits and not by way of a charge on the revenue; (b) the fund had been retained to form part of the capital employed in the business, i.e., it had
not been invested in securities or otherwise so as to take it out of the business; (c) none of the debentures became redeemable during the
accounting period; the liability to redeem the debentures was a future liability; and (d) the debentures had been separately shown in the balance
sheet as a liability. The debenture redemption reserve had not been converted into a sinking fund by investment. Therefore, ""the Tribunal was right
in holding that the debenture redemption fund could not be excluded in computing the capital of the assessee for the purpose of surtax"".
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd., has held that a debenture redemption fund which
was created by appropriation of profits from the profit and loss appropriation account, when there was no liability of the current year which had to
be met by the said fund in redeeming debentures in that year, and the funds had been set apart for use only in future, was a reserve and had to be
included in the capital base for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.
The same view is expressed by the Gujarat High Court in COMMISSIONER OF SURTAX/Income Tax Vs. AHMEDABAD
MANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD., , in respect of a debenture redemption reserve account, for :
It has come on record that these amounts were transferred to the general reserve account by the assessee and they were not utilised with a view
to meet any known or anticipated liability.
We have taken a close view and noticed that it is not the nomenclature of a reserve which will give any clue as to whether it is a provision and
thus not a reserve and if not a provision, it is a reserve which shall qualify for computation in the capital for the purposes of the Act, it is the nature
of the reserve which is relevant. It is necessary in all cases to see that the reserve is not created to meet any known or existing liability, the liability
will be said to be known only if it is so noticed and a provision accordingly is made for it and if besides the provision made for such a liability, a
reserve is created and the provision made is not found inadequate, the reserve so created may qualify for the computation. There can hardly be any
difficulty in identifying the existing liabilities and if there is some amount set apart from the profit and is not earmarked for being utilised for any
particular purpose and if marked for being utilised for a particular purpose, the purpose is not to meet any known or existing liability and is thus not
kept for being appropriated to meet such a liability it shall be a reserve and shall qualify for being computed in the capital for the purposes of the
Act. Although we have before us the orders of various authorities and statement of the case as drawn by the Tribunal, we do not have information
about the nature of the funds except the name ""debenture redemption reserve"".
We are informed by the statement of the case, ""while completing the assessment for surtax for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee contended that
the reserve created for debenture redemption should also be treated as part of the capital and appropriate relief given in arriving at the standard
deduction. The ITO rejected this contention on the view that the amount set apart for the debenture redemption reserve was for the purpose of
meeting a specific liability, namely, repayment of debenture loan, and, consequently, it could not be regarded as a reserve"". While it is incorrect, as
we have noticed above, to say that merely because a fund has been set apart for debenture redemption, a specific liability, it is a provision, it is
equally wrong to hold that since it is not a provision it is a reserve which qualifies for computation in the capital. The various questions which should
be asked are indicated by us above and we recorded that it must, before any such claim of the assessee is accepted, be examined that the reserve
whether general or specific represented money which was available with the company for utilisation during the year, that it belonged to the
company and was not owed to any one as on the last day of the accounting year; it is created by way of appropriation of profits and there was no
liability of the current year which had to be met by the fund in redeeming debentures in the year. We hold for the said reason that the case needs a
fresh examination in the light of the answer to the question as above by the Tribunal. The case is accordingly remitted to the Tribunal. No costs.