TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amount set apart as provision for taxation was includible in the capital computation as a reserve under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the amount set apart for proposed dividends was includible in the capital computation as a reserve under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
Issue (i): Whether the amount set apart as provision for taxation was includible in the capital computation as a reserve under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
Analysis: The distinction between a provision and a reserve was applied by reference to the statutory accountancy definitions and the commercial principle that an amount retained to meet a known liability, even if unquantified with precision, is a provision and not a reserve. The tax liability had already accrued at the end of the relevant accounting year, and the amount was set apart to meet that existing liability. The amount therefore did not form part of reserves for capital computation.
Conclusion: The amount set apart as provision for taxation was not a reserve and was correctly excluded from capital computation, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the amount set apart for proposed dividends was includible in the capital computation as a reserve under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
Analysis: The decisive consideration was that an amount expressly earmarked by the directors for dividend distribution is not available as working capital for the business and is not treated as a reserve merely because the shareholders may yet accept, modify, or reject the recommendation. The amount was shown as proposed dividend and was avowedly set apart for distribution to shareholders, which was destructive of its character as a reserve for capital computation purposes.
Conclusion: The amount set apart for proposed dividends was not a reserve and was not includible in capital computation, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the department on both questions, and both disputed amounts were held to be outside the reserve base for computing capital under the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: For capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act, an amount retained to meet an accrued tax liability is a provision, and an amount expressly earmarked for dividend distribution is not a reserve because it is not retained for the business as working capital.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
