Statutory contingencies reserve held taxable as business income and not deductible as expenditure.

Amounts credited to a contingencies reserve under the Electricity (Supply) Act remained part of the assessee's income because the money first reached the assessee and was only thereafter earmarked for restricted business contingencies; there was no diversion by overriding title. The statutory control over use and investment did not prevent inclusion in business profits. The same appropriation was also not deductible, because it was not expenditure incurred for an existing liability but only a reserve set aside for possible future exigencies such as accidents, strikes, or plant replacement. The Supreme Court therefore held the sums taxable as business income without a corresponding deduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount appropriated to the contingencies reserve under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was diverted by an overriding title and therefore not includible in the assessee's business income; (ii) whether, if includible, the appropriation to the contingencies reserve was allowable as a business deduction.

Issue (i): Whether the amount appropriated to the contingencies reserve under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was diverted by an overriding title and therefore not includible in the assessee's business income.

Analysis: The reserve was created from the revenues of the undertaking and the sums credited to it remained under the assessee's control, though their use was statutorily restricted to specified business contingencies. The money had to be invested in the assessee's name, could be used only for approved business-related exigencies, and remained part of the undertaking. The doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title applies only where income never reaches the assessee; here, the income first reached the assessee and was thereafter appropriated to a reserve for the business.

Conclusion: The amount standing to the credit of the contingencies reserve was not diverted by overriding title and was includible in the computation of business income, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, if includible, the appropriation to the contingencies reserve was allowable as a business deduction.

Analysis: The appropriation was not expenditure laid out for a known and existing liability. It was only a reserve created to meet possible future contingencies, including accidents, strikes, replacement of plant, and similar exigencies. A mere setting apart of money for future contingencies does not amount to expenditure incurred in the real sense for the purposes of deduction.

Conclusion: The appropriation was not allowable as a business deduction, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the sums credited to the contingencies reserve were held to be part of the assessee's taxable business profits without any corresponding deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory reserve remains the assessee's money and is only earmarked for restricted future business contingencies, it is neither diverted at source by overriding title nor deductible as business expenditure merely because its use is controlled by law.

---