COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. S. S. SIVAN PILLAI AND OTHERS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2321/1966Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 43429 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, shareholders of Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd., received dividends from profits earned in the years ending December 31, 1953, and December 31, 1954. The company had significant unabsorbed depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) and 10(2)(vi-a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, resulting in no taxable income for assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The Income-tax Officer taxed the dividend income, rejecting the shareholders' claim for exemption under Section 15-C(4). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this. The High Court, on reference, ruled in favor of the assessees. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was incorrect on both counts. Firstly, regarding unabsorbed depreciation, the Court found that under Section 10(2)(vi) proviso (b), unabsorbed depreciation from a previous year is deemed to be the depreciation for the succeeding year and must be aggregated with the current year's depreciation for the purpose of computing profits under Section 10. The Court stated that ignoring unabsorbed depreciation is inconsistent with the plain terms of the proviso. The right to claim this allowance arises from Section 10(2)(vi) proviso (b), not Section 24(2). Secondly, the Court held that the right of shareholders to claim exemption under Section 15-C(4) is dependent on the company obtaining exemption under Section 15-C(1). Since Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. had no taxable profits in the relevant years due to unabsorbed depreciation, it could not claim exemption under Section 15-C(1). Consequently, no dividend could be considered as attributable to profits on which tax was not payable by the company, and thus the shareholders were not entitled to exemption under Section 15-C(4). The appeals were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether unabsorbed depreciation of previous years must be ignored in computing profits under Section 10, and whether it is carried forward and set off under Section 24(2) (mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 10(2)(vi), 10(2)(vi-a), and 24(2)). 2. Whether a claim for exemption under Section 15-C(4) can be made even when there is no taxable profit for which exemption could be claimed under Section 15-C(1) (question of law, concerning Section 15-C(1) and 15-C(4)). Assessee's contentions: The High Court held in favor of the assessees, implying that unabsorbed depreciation should be considered and that the exemption under Section 15-C(4) was available. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the High Court's view regarding the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and the availability of exemption under Section 15-C(4) was incorrect. They argued that unabsorbed depreciation should be accounted for as per Section 10(2)(vi) proviso (b) and that the exemption under Section 15-C(4) is contingent upon the company obtaining exemption under Section 15-C(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(vi),Section 10(2)(vi-a),Section 15-C(1),Section 15-C(4),Section 24(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

434 COMMISSIONE~ OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS . v. S. S. SIVAN PILLAI AND OTHERS April 29, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J lrniian /ru:ome-tax Act, 1922, s. 15-C(l) & (4)- ShaFe-holders whether. entitled to exe1.nption under sub-s. (4) when company makes 110 profit liable to exemptwn under sub-s. (!)-Un.absorbed depreciation carried forward urnier section 10(2) (vi) and 10(.2) (vi-,A)- Whether to ~e set ofj against profit for purpose of determining profit under s. ,10- Eet:ofj of depreciation carried forward against profit of succeeding )'ear whether takes place under s. 10(2) (vi) prcwiso (b) or 11rnier s. 24(2).

Shri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd., Distributed div.iclend to its shareholders out. of its business profits earned in the years ending December 31, 1953 and December 31, 1954. The company, however carried in its accounts a large balance of unabsorbed" depreciation admissible under s. 10(2) (vi) & 10(2) (vi-a) of the Income-Lix Act, 1922 and an that account it had no taxable income in.the relevant assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56. In assessing the income of the shareholders for the assessment years the Income-tax Officet rejected the clai

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 24(2)

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →