Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for computation of capital under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, proposed dividend could be deducted from the cost of investments as a fund, surplus or reserve.
Analysis: The proposed dividend had not become a present legal liability on the relevant date, so it could not be treated as a provision. Even so, the negative and non-exhaustive concept of reserve required the true commercial nature of the appropriation to be examined. On that approach, proposed dividend represented an appropriation to meet an anticipated disbursement and was not a fund, surplus or reserve available for inclusion in capital. The amount therefore could not be deducted from the cost of investments under rule 2(ii).
Conclusion: The proposed dividend was not deductible in computing capital under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule, and the answer to the question was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that proposed dividend does not form part of the deductible fund, surplus or reserve for capital computation under the surtax schedule.
Ratio Decidendi: An appropriation for proposed dividend, though not a matured debt on the valuation date, is not a reserve or surplus available for deduction in capital computation if, on its commercial character, it represents an anticipated distribution rather than an asset of the company.