THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LID. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 615/1967Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 34823 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LID.4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the development rebate. The Court reasoned that the creation of a reserve contemplated by proviso (b) to Explanation (2) to Section 10(2)(vi-b) is a condition precedent for obtaining the allowance of development rebate. The appellant had admittedly not created any such separate reserve. The reserve contemplated by Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, is a separate reserve whose amount cannot be utilized for business purposes. In contrast, the reserve contemplated by proviso (b) to Section 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act is an independent reserve, with the amount debited before the profit and loss account is made up and credited to a reserve account to be utilized for business purposes over ten years. The nature and purposes of these two reserves are different. The entries in the account books required by the proviso are not a mere formality. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., claimed a development rebate of Rs. 1,37,836 for the assessment year 1959-60. The admitted facts were that the bank transferred Rs. 6 lakhs from its profit and loss account to its reserve fund during the accounting year. This amount was sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and also proviso (b) to Section 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. However, no separate reserve fund, as specifically required by proviso (b) to Section 10(2)(vi-b), had been created. The assessing authorities and the High Court ruled against the appellant.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the creation of a reserve in compliance with Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 10(2)(vi-b), proviso (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that since the transfer to the reserve fund was sufficient to meet the requirements of both Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and proviso (b) to Section 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, it had complied with the law in substance, if not in form, and was therefore entitled to the development rebate. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended, and the lower authorities held, that a separate reserve as stipulated by the Income-tax Act was a mandatory requirement that had not been fulfilled.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(vi-b),Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

348 THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LID. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

April 23, 1970 [J, C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A, N. GROVER, JJ.} Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 10(2) (vi-b), Proviso (b)-Deve/opment re- bate-If can be claimed where no separate reserve created but only transfer to reserves in compliance with s. 17 Banking Companies Act, 1949. B The appellant was a public limited company carrying on banking business.

For the calendar year 1958, which was the previous year relat- ing to the assessment year 1959-60, the appellant claimed allowance by C · way of development rebate under proviso (b) of · s. 10(2) (vi) (b) amounting to Rs. 1,37,836 in the computation of its business income. Th~ admitted facts of the case were that during the accounting year the appel- lant had transferred a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs from the profit and loss account to the reserve fund; this was suffieient to meet the requirements of s. 17 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as well as of proviso (b) to s. 10(2) (vi) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922; but no separate reserve fund as required by prO\·iso (b) to s. 10(2) (vi)(b) .had been created. It was I'> contended by the appellant

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 17

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →