Surtax computation rules require net income treatment, preserve qualifying reserves, and apply statutory ceilings to donation deductions.

For surtax computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, exclusions in rule 1(viii) and rule 1(ix) were read as net income computed under the Income-tax Act after Chapter VIA adjustments, not gross dividend or royalty receipts. Rule 4 of the Second Schedule was not applied to reduce capital base proportionately for Chapter VIA deductions. General reserve created from section 80J-exempt profits remained part of capital base, while short provision for gratuity could not be deducted from reserves. Bonus shares did not justify proportionate increase in paid-up share capital. For donations under section 80G, the relevant sum was only the amount actually qualifying for deduction, subject to the statutory ceiling.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for rule 1(viii) and rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the amount to be excluded is the gross or net income by way of dividends and royalties, and whether Chapter VIA reductions are to be taken into account; (ii) whether rule 4 of the Second Schedule applies to deductions admissible under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to reduce the capital base proportionately; (iii) whether a general reserve created out of profits exempt under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 forms part of the capital base; (iv) whether the amount deposited with IDBI in lieu of surcharge is to be treated in the assessee's favour; (v) whether short provision for gratuity can be deducted from reserve while computing capital employed; (vi) whether proportionate increase in paid-up share capital is allowable on account of bonus shares; and (vii) what amount is to be taken as the sum with reference to which deduction is allowable under rule 1(vii) in respect of donations under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether, for rule 1(viii) and rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the amount to be excluded is the gross or net income by way of dividends and royalties, and whether Chapter VIA reductions are to be taken into account.

Analysis: The expressions in rule 1(viii) and rule 1(ix) were read in the setting of the computation of total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The exclusion contemplated by rule 1 is of income already included in total income, and the later Explanation inserted in 1981 was treated as clarificatory. In the light of the Supreme Court's construction of similar language in the dividend context, the excluded amount was held to be the income as computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 after Chapter VIA adjustments, not the gross receipts.

Conclusion: The exclusion under rule 1(viii) and rule 1(ix) is of net income by way of dividends and royalties, after Chapter VIA deductions; this issue is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 applies to deductions admissible under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to reduce the capital base proportionately.

Analysis: The point had already been decided by prior Tribunal and High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Following those authorities, the Court declined to accept the departmental contention and held that rule 4 did not operate in the manner suggested by the Revenue.

Conclusion: Rule 4 of the Second Schedule does not justify proportionate reduction of capital base by reference to Chapter VIA deductions; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a general reserve created out of profits exempt under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 forms part of the capital base.

Analysis: On identical facts the point had earlier been decided against the Revenue. The Court followed that view and held that the reserve could not be excluded merely because its source was exempt profits under section 80J.

Conclusion: The general reserve was includible in the capital base; this issue is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the amount deposited with IDBI in lieu of surcharge is to be treated in the assessee's favour.

Analysis: The Tribunal preferred the reasoning of the Special Bench which had taken a view adverse to the assessee on the treatment of such deposit. Following that decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) was reversed on this point.

Conclusion: The deposit with IDBI in lieu of surcharge was not accepted as deductible in the assessee's favour; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether short provision for gratuity can be deducted from reserve while computing capital employed.

Analysis: Rule 1A of the Second Schedule was held to deal with failure to provide for taxation and proposed dividends, not gratuity. As there was no other provision authorising reduction of capital base on account of short provision for gratuity, the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: Short provision for gratuity cannot be deducted from reserve for capital computation; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether proportionate increase in paid-up share capital is allowable on account of bonus shares.

Analysis: The Court followed the binding Bombay High Court decision which had rejected the claim for proportionate increase on issue of bonus shares.

Conclusion: No proportionate increase in paid-up share capital was allowable on account of bonus shares; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (vii): What amount is to be taken as the sum with reference to which deduction is allowable under rule 1(vii) in respect of donations under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression in rule 1(vii) was read with section 80G as a whole, including the monetary ceiling in sub-section (4). The relevant sum was therefore the amount actually qualifying for deduction under section 80G, not the entire amount of donation made. The prior contrary Tribunal view was not followed.

Conclusion: The relevant amount is the ceiling-limited qualifying sum under section 80G, and not the full donation amount; this issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision grants relief to the assessee on the principal questions relating to exclusion of net dividend and royalty income, capital-base computation, general reserve, and gratuity shortfall, while sustaining the Revenue's position on the IDBI deposit, bonus shares, and donation-related deduction computation.

Ratio Decidendi: For surtax computation, exclusions in the First Schedule are confined to income as finally computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and where the charging or deduction provision in that Act is subject to a monetary ceiling, the ceiling controls the amount referable to the surtax adjustment unless the surtax provision clearly indicates otherwise.

---