TMI Blog1974 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of determining the chargeable profits of the assessee-company for the purpose of super profits tax assessment for the year 1963-64. It appears that, for calculating the capital base for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the Income-tax Officer excluded the balance sum of Rs. 35,029 standing as reserve for doubtful debts on the ground that, since this amount was earmarked for specific liability, it could not be regarded as a reserve amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner who heard the appeal allowed the appeal on this point and reversed the Income-tax Officer's orders. The department went in second appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed that appeal of the department holding that it was clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not think that any question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order. The second question pertains to computation of chargeable profits. Admittedly, the assessee had earned gross dividend of Rs. 1,83,304 but the Income-tax Officer for the purpose of computing the chargeable profits deducted only the net dividend of Rs. 94,412 arrived at by excluding the proportionate management expenses. The question whether for computing the chargeable profits the gross dividend should be deducted or the net dividend arrived at by excluding the proportionate management expenses. should be deducted depended upon the proper construction of rule 1(viii) under the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Under rule 1 it has been provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961, such as section 80M of that Act, by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Industrial investment Trust Co. Ltd. A similar view has been taken by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. New Great insurance Co. Ltd. It is true that the two decisions on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal pertain to the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961. But since the expression that fell for construction in those two decisions is admittedly the same as occurring in the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, there is no reason why different interpretations on these words should be placed unless the context otherwise indicates. In the circumstances, we feel that the rule should be discharged with costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
