1989 (10) TMI 95 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of company, finding tax demand invalid due to exclusion of capital redemption reserve.

The tribunal allowed the appeal by the limited company, holding that the authorities erred in not excluding the amount transferred to the capital ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 104(1) of the IT Act regarding tax on undistributed profits.2. Compliance with the Companies Act, specifically Section 80.3. Calculation of distributable income under Section 109 of the IT Act.4. Equitable and harmonious construction of the IT Act and the Companies Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 104(1) of the IT Act regarding tax on undistributed profits:The assessee, a limited company, appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the ITO's action under Section 104(1) of the IT Act, which demanded a tax of Rs. 25,891 on undistributed profits. The assessee argued that the profits were appropriated in compliance with the Companies Act, leaving insufficient funds for dividend distribution. The ITO calculated a distributable income of Rs. 1,38,382 and determined a shortfall in dividend distribution of Rs. 51,782, leading to the tax demand.2. Compliance with the Companies Act, specifically Section 80:The assessee contended that it had to comply with the Companies Act's mandatory provisions, particularly Section 80, which governs the redemption of redeemable preference shares. The company had transferred Rs. 58,779 to the capital redemption reserve account from the year's profits, which was a requirement under Section 80. This mandatory transfer reduced the funds available for dividend distribution. The tribunal acknowledged that non-compliance with the Companies Act would attract penalties and prosecution, making the company's argument plausible.3. Calculation of distributable income under Section 109 of the IT Act:The tribunal analyzed the calculation of distributable income under Section 109 of the IT Act, which starts with the gross total income and allows specific deductions. The tribunal noted that the IT Act does not explicitly provide for deductions of amounts transferred to reserve accounts as required by the Companies Act. However, the tribunal emphasized the need for equitable and harmonious construction of statutes to avoid conflicts between the IT Act and the Companies Act. The tribunal concluded that the amounts transferred to the capital redemption reserve account should be deducted from the distributable surplus calculated under Section 109.4. Equitable and harmonious construction of the IT Act and the Companies Act:The tribunal highlighted the importance of equitable construction of statutes, asserting that the profits available for dividend distribution under the Companies Act should be given the same meaning under the IT Act. The tribunal reasoned that since the IT Act does not override the Companies Act, the amounts transferred to the redemption reserve account should be excluded from the distributable surplus. This approach aligns with Section 104(2) of the IT Act, which considers the reasonableness of dividend payments in light of mandatory appropriations under the Companies Act.Conclusion:The tribunal concluded that the authorities erred in not excluding the amount of Rs. 58,779 transferred to the capital redemption reserve account from the distributable surplus. Consequently, there was no shortfall in dividend distribution, rendering the ITO's action under Section 104(1) without jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed.