Distributable income under section 109 must reflect prudent business judgment; non-business interest and prior tax arrears were not deductible.

Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied where, after a realistic appraisal of the company's financial position and relevant commercial factors, distributable income remained sufficient to attract additional tax. The court applied the prudent businessman standard in computing distributable income under section 109 and held that arrears of earlier years' tax were not deductible because the company had substantial reserves and no earlier losses. It also held that interest on borrowings diverted to sister concerns was not expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business and was therefore not deductible. The plea of smallness of profits failed, and additional tax remained chargeable under section 104.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73; (ii) whether, in computing distributable income under section 109 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the arrears of tax for earlier years and interest on borrowings diverted for non-business purposes were deductible.

Issue (i): whether section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73.

Analysis: The provisions governing additional tax on undistributed profits were applicable to a private limited company if the statutory conditions were met. The question turned on whether, after making the relevant deductions, the distributable income remained sufficient to attract section 104. The assessment had to be made on a realistic appraisal of the company's financial position and not by ignoring relevant commercial factors.

Conclusion: Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applicable to the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73.

Issue (ii): whether, in computing distributable income under section 109 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the arrears of tax for earlier years and interest on borrowings diverted for non-business purposes were deductible.

Analysis: In computing distributable income, the Income-tax Officer had to take an overall view of the company's financial position and apply the prudent businessman standard. On the facts, the past tax liability of Rs. 6,610 was not required to be deducted because the assessee had substantial reserves and no earlier losses, and shifting that burden to the year in question was unjustified. The interest of Rs. 8,074 on borrowings diverted to sister concerns was not expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business and did not fall within the permissible deductions under section 109(1). The claim relating to bad debts was outside the question referred.

Conclusion: The arrears of tax for earlier years and the interest on borrowings diverted for non-business purposes were not deductible in computing distributable income under section 109 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's plea of smallness of profits failed, and the distributable income remained large enough to attract additional tax under section 104.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 104, distributable income must be determined on the basis of all relevant commercial factors viewed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, but past tax liabilities and non-business interest are not deductible where the company has substantial reserves and the expenditure is not wholly and exclusively for business.

---