1986 (7) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules debenture redemption reserve part of capital base; no reduction under sec 80J

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Peico Electronics And Electricals (Formerly Philips India Limited)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Peico Electronics And Electricals (Formerly Philips India Limited) - [1987] 166 ITR 299, 64 CTR 73, 33 TAXMANN 551 Issues Involved:1. Whether the debenture redemption reserve of Rs. 50,00,000 should be excluded from the capital base.2. Whether the capital base can be reduced proportionately with reference to the deductions allowed u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/r 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.Summary:Issue 1: Debenture Redemption Reserve Exclusion from Capital BaseThe Income-tax Officer excluded Rs. 50 lakhs shown as a debenture redemption reserve from the capital base of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the debenture redemption reserve did not constitute a sinking fund and should not be excluded in computing the capital base. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the reserve was not invested in any shares or securities but was utilized for the assessee's business. The Tribunal applied principles from William Pickles' Accountancy, 3rd edition, to support its decision.The High Court considered various precedents, including CIT v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. [1982] 138 ITR 111 (Cal), CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 716 (Bom), and CIT v. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 332 (Cal). The court concluded that the debenture redemption reserve in this case fulfilled the tests of a reserve: it was created out of appropriation from profits, retained as part of the capital employed in the business, and none of the debentures became redeemable during the accounting period. Therefore, the debenture redemption reserve should be included in the capital base. The court answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.Issue 2: Reduction of Capital Base with Reference to Deductions Allowed u/s 80JThe Income-tax Officer reduced the capital base of the assessee by Rs. 19,36,835 on account of deductions allowed u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that this reduction was not justified. The High Court followed its earlier decision in CIT v. Schrader Scovill Duncan Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 822 and answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.Conclusion:Both issues were resolved in favor of the assessee. The debenture redemption reserve was included in the capital base, and the capital base was not reduced by the deductions allowed u/s 80J. There was no order as to costs.