1998 (1) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court clarifies tax law: 'accumulated profits' must be commercial; sum under sec 41(2) not taxable.

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Urmila Rungta, Urmila Ramesh

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that 'accumulated profits' must be understood in ... Liquidation of a company - amount received on sale of assets - assessability - revenue's contention that the amount distributed was the accumulated profits of the Company and assessable as 'deemed dividend' u/s 2(22), is not acceptable because amount taxed under section 41(2) in the hands of company did not represent 'accumulated profits' for the purpose of s. 2(22) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the sum of Rs. 7,28,760 representing profits assessed under section 41(2) in preceding years can form part of the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines 'dividend' and includes distributions made to shareholders on liquidation to the extent attributable to accumulated profits. The Court noted that the term 'accumulated profits' must be understood in the commercial sense, meaning profits capable of being accumulated and capitalized. The Court emphasized that profits deemed to be dividends should be those which the company could have distributed to its shareholders as dividends.2. Whether the Sum of Rs. 7,28,760 Representing Profits Assessed Under Section 41(2) Can Form Part of the Accumulated Profits for Section 2(22)(c)The Court addressed whether the amount of Rs. 7,28,760, assessed as profit under section 41(2), could be considered accumulated profits under section 2(22)(c). The Income-tax Officer had included this amount in the accumulated profits, but the respondents contended that this amount was not commercial profit but a return of capital. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Tribunal had accepted this contention, and the High Court affirmed this view, holding that the amount assessed under section 41(2) could not form part of the accumulated profits.The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, noting that section 41(2) creates a legal fiction where the excess amount over the written down value is treated as income from business. However, this does not change the nature of the receipt, which remains a return of capital. The Court referred to previous judgments, including CIT v. Bipinchandra Maganlal and Co. Ltd. [1961] 41 ITR 290, which held that such amounts, though taxable as deemed income, are not commercial profits.The Court also examined the scheme of depreciation and balancing charges under sections 32 and 41(2), concluding that these provisions aim to adjust the depreciation allowed in earlier years. The excess amount received on the sale of assets, taxed under section 41(2), is not actual profit but a mechanism to withdraw excess depreciation allowed. Therefore, it cannot be considered accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(c).The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the amount could be considered capital gains under section 50, noting that this argument was not raised earlier and that both sections 41(2) and 50 could not apply to the same amount.ConclusionThe Supreme Court held that the amount received by the company and taxed under section 41(2) did not represent 'accumulated profits' within the meaning of section 2(22) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court was correct in answering the questions of law in favor of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed with costs.