Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Surtax on 28 October, 1969

Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 August, 1980

It appears from the said decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Surtax [1971] 80 ITR 571 that the company had made five appropriations, viz., (1) for plant modernisation and rehabilitation reserve, (2) loan redemption reserve, (3) reserve for development rebates, (4) dividend reserve, and (5) reserve for super profits tax. The High Court held that the amount standing to the credit of dividend reserve and reserve for super profits tax in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company were in the nature of appropriation for taxation and proposed dividends and could not be regarded as reserve for the purpose of computation of capital. The questions relating to these two appropriations were, therefore, answered by the High Court against the assessee. The other appropriations or reservations relating to the plant modernisation and rehabilitation reserve, loan redemption reserve and development rebate reserve were held by the High Court to be reserves for the purpose of computation of capital. In those circumstances, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court with regard to these three reserves. The assessee, however, did not question the findings of the High Court on the question of dividend reserve and the provision for taxation. The Supreme Court considered only about three appropriations, viz., (1) the plant modernisation and rehabilitation reserve, (2) loan redemption reserve, and (3) reserve for development rebate. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that out of the profits of the respondent-company for the accounting period ending on 31st March, 1963, the directors of the company appropriated the following amounts towards the reserves on 8th August, 1963, viz., (1) Rs. 2,56,000 as plant modernisation and rehabilitation reserve, (2) Rs. 1,00,000 as loan repatriation reserve, and (3) Rs. 89,587 as development rebate reserve. The question before the Supreme Court as mentioned before was whether this amount should be included in computing the capital of the assessee-company as on the 1st April, 1963, under Rule 1 of Schedule II to the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964, for the purpose of statutory deductions for the assessment year 1964-65. The revenue had contended that since the appropriations were made on the 8th August, 1963, this could not be treated as components of capital as on the 1st day of the previous year, that is, 1st April, 1963. It was held, rejecting the contention of the department, that the determination of the directors to appropriate the amounts to the three items of reserve on 8th August, 1963, had to be related back to the 1st of April, 1963, that is, the beginning of the accounts for the next year, i.e. the beginning of the accounts for the new year, and must be treated as effective from that date, and it was held that the three items had to be added to the other items for the computation of the capital of the respondent company as on 1st April, 1963, under Rule 1 of Schedule II to the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964. Dealing with this aspect, G.K. Matter J., who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court, observed at p. 569 of the report as follows : ''It is well known that the accounts of the company have to be made up for a year up to a particular day. In this case that day was the 31st March, 1963. If it was reasonably practicable to make up the accounts up to the 31st March, 1963, and present the same to the directors of the respondent on April 1, 1963, they could have made up their minds on that day and declared their intention of appropriating the said and other sums to reserves of different kinds. But the fact that they could not do so, for the simple reason that the calculation and collection of figures of all the items of income and expenditure of the company for the year ending March 31, 1963, was bound to take some time, cannot make any difference to the nature or quality of the appropriation of the profits to reserves as determined by the directors after the first of April, 1963. Their determination to appropriate the sums mentioned to the three separate classes of reserves on the 8th August, 1963, must be related to the 1st of April, 1963, i.e., the beginning of the accounts for the new year and must be treated as effective from that day."
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. on 28 March, 1976

15. Our attention has been invited to served decisions but we think that the only pertinent case to which reference ought to be made is the decisions of the Mysore High Court in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax reported in [1971] 80 ITR 571 (Mys). In that case the directors in their report to the general body of shareholders proposed, inter alia, appropriation of Rs. 3,15,000 to dividend reserve out of the profits of the year ending March 31, 1963. The question arose for consideration whether this sum of Rs. 3,15,000 which was appropriated to dividend reserve should be regarded as reserve for the purpose of computation of capital having regard to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act read with the Explanation thereto. The Mysore High Court laid down that the amount standing to the credit of the dividend reserve is in the nature of item "proposed dividend" (item 9 in the form of balance-sheet) and consequently it could not be regarded as reserve for the purpose of computation of capital for the purposes of surtax. It was urged by Mr. Dastur that there is no express statement in the judgment showing that the amount of Rs. 3,15,000 was transferred to dividend reserve under the heading "reserves and surplus". If regard be had to the facts of the case as stated at pages 572-573 it is quite evident that the various items which are mentioned therein are items of reserves under the heading "Reserves and surplus". As, therefore, this case supports the submissions that have been made by Mr. Joshi before us, in respect of an all India statute it is a well-recognised convention that, to avoid uncertainty in law, one High Court should follow the decision of another High Court though it should be regarded as a persuasive authority. We have taken the same view as taken by the Mysore High Court in this case upon relevant consideration of the provisions of rule 1 read with the Explanation to the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act and the view taken by us is supported by the view taken by the Mysore High Court in the above case.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 52 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

English Electric Company Of India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 October, 1979

16. The learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner drew our attention to two other decisions. The first is of the Mysore High Court in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Surtax [1971] 80 ITR 571 (Mys). In that case, the question was whether a sum of Rs. 1,03,162, which represented the difference between the depreciation computed by the assessee on its assets and the depreciation as allowed by the I.T. authorities, could be considered as a reserve. The balance-sheet of the assessee in that case also did not contain any such item as a reserve. The High Court was in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal that there was no reserve, which had to be taken into account for the purpose of capital computation. There is no discussion in the said judgment, but the matter appears to be too patent to warrant a discussion. We adopt the same view here.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Loharu Steel Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 September, 1994

3. In the appeals filed before him, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had surrendered for taxation an amount of Rs. 7,86,610 for the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 21,94,210 for the assessment year 1981-82 on account of excess burning loss. He stated that the concealed income of the assessee which had been surrendered in the settlement arrived at with the Department was not reflected either in the books or in the balance sheets of the assessee for either of the two years. He stated that in fact, the surrendered income had been claimed as expenditure by way of excess burning loss during these two years. By relying on the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1971] 80 ITR 571 in which the importance of presence of entries in the books/balance-sheet of a company for claiming an amount as "reserve" had been highlighted, the CIT(A) negatived the contention of the assessee about inclusion of the amounts within "reserve".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Peirce Leslie And Co. Ltd. on 17 January, 1983

14. To the same effect is a judgment of the Mysore High Court in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1971] 80 ITR 571. In that case, an excess provision for depreciation was claimed as a reserve in the computation of the capital under the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act. Rejecting this claim, the Mysore High Court observed as follows (p. 573) :
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1