KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/1977Supreme Court[1993] 2 S.C.R. 10925 February 1993Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N. VENKATACHALA PREMCHAND PVT. LTD. A5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd., was issued a notice under Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. To meet a potential tax liability, the assessee set apart Rs. 6,52,000 in its books for the year ending March 31, 1956. During 1958-59, Rs. 2,02,000 was transferred to the profit and loss account, leaving a balance of Rs. 4,50,000 as a provision for contingent liability. The assessee contested the Section 23A proceedings and ultimately succeeded before the High Court, which held no action could be taken under that section. For the assessment year 1963-64, under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the assessee claimed the Rs. 4,50,000 as a reserve to be included in its capital. The Income Tax Officer disagreed. The Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the assessee, but the High Court, on reference from the Revenue, held it to be a provision, not a reserve, and thus not includible in capital. The assessee appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that provisions made against anticipated losses and contingencies are charges against profits, to be accounted for against gross receipts in the P&L accounts and balance sheet. Reserves, conversely, are appropriations of profits, with the assets represented by them retained to form part of the capital employed in the business. Applying this distinction, the Court found that the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 set apart by the assessee to meet the anticipated tax liability under Section 23A was indeed a provision and not a reserve. The Court noted that the assessee itself described it as a provision and did not treat it as a reserve. Therefore, the High Court was correct in holding it to be a provision, and consequently, the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 was not to be included in the computation of the assessee-company's capital. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Metal Box Company of India Limited v. Their Workmen and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. etc. etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh etc. etc.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 set apart for contingent liability (taxation) is to be included in the computation of the capital of the assessee-company under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, as a reserve or a provision? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that since no order levying additional tax under Section 23A was made on or before the relevant date for the assessment year 1963-64, the amount could not be treated as a provision. The assessee contended it was a reserve. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the amount was a provision for a contingent liability and not a reserve, and therefore, not includible in the capital computation. The Revenue relied on the High Court's decision which followed this Court's ruling in Metal Box Company of India Limited v. Their Workmen, 73 I.T.R. 53.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23A,Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT. LTD. A v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 : Second Schedule-Rule I-Amount set apart for contingent liability (Income-tax}-Whether a reserve or a provision-Whether to be included in C the Computation of Capital of the assessee.

The appellant-assessee was issued a notice under Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The '\Ssessee contested the same. At the same time, it set apart a sum of Rs. 6,52,000 in its books for the year ending 31st D March 1956, to meet the contingency that may arise if bis plea failed.

During the year 1958-59 an amount of Rs. 2,02,000 out of the said amount was transferred to the profit & loss account. The balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000 continuer) to remain and was shown as a provision set apart to meet the aforesaid contingent liability. The assessee bas been contesting the said proceedings. Ultimately it succeeded before the High Court which E held that no action could be taken against the assessee under Section 23A.

For the assessment year 1963-64 in proceedings under the Super Profits Tax Act, the assessee cla

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 23A

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →