TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of 'Reserve' under Super Profits Tax Act, 1963: Tax liability /= reserve, gratuity = reserve, bonus X reserve.</h1> <h3>Mettur Industries Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras</h3> The High Court interpreted the term 'reserve' under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, focusing on provisions for tax liability, gratuity, and bonus in ... Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Super Profits Tax Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'reserve' under Paragraph 1 of Schedule II of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.2. Inclusion of provisions for tax liability, gratuity, and bonus in the computation of capital for the Super Profits Tax Act.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the interpretation of the term 'reserve' under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, specifically focusing on provisions for tax liability, gratuity, and bonus in the computation of capital. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding the inclusion of certain provisions in the assessee's capital for the purpose of the Act. The primary issue revolved around whether the provisions for tax liability, gratuity, and bonus qualified as reserves under Paragraph 1 of Schedule II of the Act.The court examined each provision separately. Firstly, regarding the provision for tax liability of Rs. 15,50,000, it was established that this amount constituted a provision rather than a reserve. Citing precedents, the court clarified that a provision is made to meet a known liability, unlike a reserve which is for unforeseen contingencies. The court emphasized that the provision for tax liability could not be considered a reserve and, therefore, should not be included in the capital computation.Secondly, the provision for gratuity to employees amounting to Rs. 1,36,060 was analyzed. The court noted that this provision was not based on ascertainable amounts due each year but was a lump sum set aside annually. Relying on legal precedents, the court determined that such provisions for contingent liabilities qualify as reserves rather than provisions. Consequently, the court held that the gratuity provision should be included in the capital computation.Lastly, the provision for payment of bonus to employees totaling Rs. 5,69,000 was scrutinized. The court observed that this amount was designated for a known present liability, as per an agreement between the employer and employees. Given that the provision was not for unforeseen contingencies, the court agreed with the Tribunal that this amount did not constitute a reserve under the Act.In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the provisions for tax liability and bonus, affirming that they should not be included in the capital computation. However, the court ruled in favor of including the provision for gratuity in the capital computation as it qualified as a reserve. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of each provision in relation to the definition of 'reserve' under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, setting a clear precedent for future cases involving similar issues.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
