Supreme Court of India
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 478
- Decided
- 10 April 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHAN
Holding
The Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to replace depreciation rates prescribed in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act while computing book profit under section 115J; he may only verify that the accounts are certified and may adjust only as per the Explanation to that section.
Summary
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. consistently claimed depreciation in its profit and loss account at the rates prescribed by the Income‑Tax Rules, not at the rates in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer, invoking section 115J of the Income‑Tax Act, recomputed the company’s book profit by substituting the Companies‑Act depreciation rates, thereby increasing tax liability. The issue was whether, under s.115J, the tax officer could go behind the net profit shown in the accounts and replace the depreciation method. The Supreme Court, relying on the earlier Apollo Tyres judgment, held that the purpose of s.115J is merely to deem a minimum tax on book profit and that the officer may only verify that the accounts are certified under the Companies Act and may adjust only as permitted by the Explanation to s.115J. Consequently, the officer cannot substitute depreciation rates prescribed in Schedule XIV. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Kerala High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Assessing Officer can rework net profit under section 115J by substituting depreciation rates prescribed in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act when the company has charged depreciation as per Income‑Tax Rules.
- Whether the Assessing Officer may go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account beyond the limited powers granted by the Explanation to section 115J.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956s. 205, s. 350, s. Schedule XIV
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 115J, s. 154
Subjects
section 115Jdepreciationbook profitminimum alternate taxCompanies ActSchedule XIVassessing officer jurisdictionincome tax assessment
Judgment
[2008] 6 S.C.R 211
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5420-5423 of 2002)
APRIL 10, 2008
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 - s.115J:
Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1989-90 - Company
consistently charging depreciation in its books of account at C
rates prescribed in the Income-tax Rules - Whether in respect
of such a company, the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction
under s.115J of the Income Tax Act to rework net profits by
substituting the rates prescribed in Schedule XIV of the
Companies Act, 1956 - Held: The Assessing Officer does not D
have jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit
and loss account except to the extent provided in the
Explanation to s. 115J - Companies Act, 1956 - Schedule XIV
The question which arose for consideration in the E
present appeals is whether in respect of a company
consistently charging depreciation in its books of
account at the rates prescribed in the Income-Tax Rules,
the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction under section 115J
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to rework net profits by
substituting the rates prescribed in Schedule XIV of the F
,; > Companies Act, 1956.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1.The whole purpose of section 11 SJ of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 was to tax a company which had no G
taxable income, but showed a book profit. [Para 7] [219-F]
1.2. The controversy involved in this case is no
longer res integra. A three Judge Bench of this Court in
211 H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A Apollo Tyres's case has clearly interpreted section 115J of
the 1961 Act. There is no scope for any further discussion.
In the Apollo Tyres's case, this Court examined the object
of introducing section 115J in the 1961 Act. The Court held
·that the purpose of introducing this section was that the
B Income Tax Authorities were unable to bring certain
companies within the net of income tax because these
companies were adjusting their accounts in such a
manner as to attract no tax or very little tax. It is with a
view to bring such of these companies within the tax net
C that section 115J was introduced in the 1961 Act with a
deeming provision which makes the company liable to
pay tax on at least 30% of its book profits as shown in its
own account. For the said purpose, section 11 SJ makes
the income reflected in the companies' books of accounts
as the deemed income for the purpose of assessing the
0
tax. While so looking into the accounts of the company,
an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act has to
accept the authenticity of the accounts with reference to
the provisions of the Companies Act which obligates the
company to maintain its account in a manner provided
E by the Companies Act and the same to be scrutinized and
certified by statutory auditors and will have to be
approved by the company in its general meeting and
thereafter to be filed before the Registrar of Companies
who has a statutory obligation also to examine and satisfy
F that the accounts of the company are maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act.
lnspite of all these procedures contemplated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, the Court observed that
it is difficult to accept the argument of the Revenue that it
G is still open to the Assessing Officer to rescrutinize this
account and satisfy himself that these accounts have
been maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
Companies Act. The Court categorically held that the
Assessing Officer while computing the income under
H Section 115-J has only the power of examining whether
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 213
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
the books of account are certified by the authorities under A
the Companies Act as having been properly maintained
in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing
Officer thereafter has the limited power of making
increases and reductions as provided for in the
Explanation to the said section. To put it differently, the B
Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go
behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account
except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section
115-J. [Paras 13, 28] [229-A, B; 222-B, F, G; 223-A-G]
Apollo Tyres Ltd. etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, C
Kochi etc.(2002) 9 sec 1- relied on.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sona Woolen Mills Pvt.
Ltd. (2007) 160 Taxman 22; Malaya/a Manorama (2002) 253
ITR 378; Kinetic Motors v. Deputy Commissioner of Income D
Tax (2003) 262 ITR 33; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Loyal
Textiles Mills Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 307 (Madras);
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thiroo Arooran Sugars Ltd.
(2006) 152 Taxman 344 (Madras); Cochin Cada/as (P) Ltd.
v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 125 Taxman 47
(Kera/a) and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Deputy E
Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 281 ITR 177
(Rajasthan); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dynamic
Orthopaedics Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 446; Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 693;
) 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman Fabrics F
(P) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 431 and J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union
of India, (2008) 297 ITR 176 - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
5420-5423 of 2002.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2001 of the
High Court of Kerala in Income Tax Reference Nos. 245/1999
and 289/1999
Rustom B. Hathikhanawala for the AppellanUAssessee.
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A R.K. Shukla, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent/
Revenue.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. These appeals are directed
B. against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court at Ernakulam on 13th November, 2001 whereby the
High Court has decided Income Tax Reference Nos.245, 259,
289 and 293 of 1999 by a common judgment.
c 2. The main question which arose for consideration before
the Court below was:
"Whether in respect of a company consistently charging
depreciation in its books of account at the rates prescribed
in the Income-tax Rules, the Income Tax Officer has
D
jurisdiction under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961
to rework net profits by substituting the rates prescribed
in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956?"
3. The concept of a minimum tax on zero tax companies
E was introduced under section SOWA of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act") when a ceiling
was placed on allowances by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect
from the Assessment Year 1984-85. However, the allowances
unabsorbed, because of the restriction imposed by the ceiling,
F were carried forward, so that they could be absorbed in a later . \
year, if adequate profits are available. Section 80VVA was
dropped from the statute by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect
from A.Y. 1988-89, when replaced Book Profits Tax by section
G 115J of the 1961 Act. But it was materially different in one respect
that no part of the tax on book profits could be adjusted against
tax on regular assessment at a future date.
4. It may be pertinent to mention that the Book Profit Tax
was abandoned with effect from A.Y. 1990-91 by the Finance
H
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 215
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Act, 1990. It was re-introduced with a new name "Minimum A
Alternate Tax" with effect from A.Y. 1997-98 under section 115JA.
5. For ready reference, we deem it appropriate to
reproduce section 115J of the 1961 Act as under:
"115-J. Special provisions relating to certain B
)'
companies.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other provision of this Act, where in the case of an
assessee being a company other than a company
engaged in the business of generation or distribution of
electricity, the total income, as computed under this Act in c
respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment
year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1988 but
before the 1st day of April, 1991 (hereafter in this section
referred to as the relevant previous year) is less than thirty
per cent of its book profit, the total income of such assessee
D
chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall be
.A
deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent 'of such
book profit.
(1-A) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the
purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account E
for the relevant previous year in accordance with the
provisions of Parts II and Ill of Schedule VI to the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'book
profit' means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss F
'·" I
account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-
section (1-A), as increased by-
(a) the amount of income tax paid or payable, and the
provision therefor; or G
(b) the amounts carried to any reserves other than the
.... reserves specified in Section 80-HHD or sub-section
(1) of Section 33-AC, by whatever name called; or
(c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities;
or
(d) the amount by way of provision for losses of
Hubsidiary companies; or
8 (e) the amount or amounts of dividends paid or
proposed; or
(~ the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to
any income to which any of the provisions of Chapter
Ill applies; or
c
(g) the amount withdrawn from the reserve account under
Section 80-HHD, where it has been utilised for any
purpose other than those referred to in sub-section
(4) of that section; or
D (h) the amount credited to the reserve account under
Section 80-HHD, to the extent that amount has not
been utilised within the period specified in sub-
section (4) of that section;
(ha) the amount deemed to be the profits under sub-
E
section (3) of Section 33-AC;
if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to(~ is debited or,
as the case may be, the amount referred to in clauses (g) r
and (h) is not credited to the profit and loss account, and
F as reduced by,-
• I
(1) the amount withdrawn from reserves other than the ' '
reserves specified in Section 80-HHD or provisions,
if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss
account:
G
Provided that, where this section is applicable to an
assessee in any previous year (including the relevant
previous year), the amount withdrawn from reserves
created or provisions made in a previous year
relevant to the a$sessment year commencing on or
H
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 217
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
after the 1st day of April, 1988 shall not be reduced A
from the book profit unless the book profit of such
year has been increased by those reserves or
provisions (out of which the said amount was
withdrawn) under this Explanation; or
(ii) the amount of income to which any of the provisions B
j
of Chapter Ill applies, if any such amount is credited
~ to the profit and loss account; or
(iii) the amounts as arrived at after increasing the net
profit by the amounts referred to in clauses (a) to (f) c
and redudng the net profit by the amo!Jnts referred
to in clauses (1) and (ii) attributable to the business,
the profits from which are eligible for deduction under
Section 80-HHC or Section 80-HHD; so, however,
that such amounts are computed in the manner
D
specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3-A) of
Section 80-HHC or sub-section (3) of Section 80-
HHD, as the case may be; or
. (iv) the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation
which would be required to be set off against the E
profit of the relevant previous year as if the provisions
of clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section ( 1) of
Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956),
are applicable.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the F
determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant
previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent
year or years under the provisions of sub-section (2) of
Section 32 or sub-section (3) of Section 32-A or clause
(i1) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Section 73 or Section G
74·or sub-section (3) of Section74-A or sub-section (3) of
Section 80-J."
" 6. A new Chapter Xll-B containing section 115J was
inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988.
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A This new section made provisions for levy of minimum tax on
book profits of certain companies. The scope and effect of these
provisions have been elaborated in the following portion of the
departmental circular No.495, dated 22nd September, 1987:-
"New provisions to levy minimum tax on "book profit"
B of certain companies:
..
36.1 It is an accepted cannon of taxation to levy tax on the
basis of ability to pay. However, as a result of various tax
concessions and incentives certain companies making
c huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends, have
been managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid
payment of income-tax.
36.2 Accordingly, as a measure of equity, section 115J
has been introduced by the Finance Act. By virtue of the
D new provisions, in the case of a company whose total
income as computed under the provisions of the Income-
tax Act is less then 30% of the book profit computed under
the section, the total income chargeable to tax will be 30
% of the book profit as computed. For the purposes of
E section 115J, book profits will be the net profit as shown
in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with
the provisions of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956,
after certain adjustments. The net profit as above will be
increased by income-tax paid or payable or the provisions
F thereof, amount carried to any reserve, provision made
for liabilities other than ascertained liabilities, provision
for losses of subsidiary companies. etc., if the amounts
are debited to the profit and loss account. Liabilities relating
to expenditure whi·Jh has been incurred or which has
accrued in respect of expenses which are otherwise
G
deductible in computing income will not be added back.
The amount so arrived at is to be reduced by-
..
(i) amounts withdrawn from reserves, if any such
amount is credited to the profit and loss account;
H
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR OF 219
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
(ii) the amount of income to which any of the provisions A
of Chapter Ill applies, if any such amount is credited
to the profit and loss account; and
(iii) the amount of any brought forward losses or
unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less as
computed under the provisions of section 205(1 )(b) 8
of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purposes of
declaration of dividends. Section 205 of the
Companies Act requires every company desirous of
declaring dividend to provide for depreciation for
the relevant accounting year. Further, the company is C
required under section 205 to set off against the
profit of the relevant accounting year, the depreciation
debited to the profit and loss account of any earlier
year(s) or loss whichever is less.
D
36.3 Section 115J, therefore, involves two processes.
Firstly, an assessing authority has to determine the income
.' of the company under the provisions of the Income-tax
Act. Secondly, the book profit is to be. worked out in
accordance with the Explanation to section 115J(1) and it
is to be seen whether the income determined under the E
first process is less than 30 per cent of the book profit.
Section 115J would be invoked if the income determined
under the first process is less than 30 per cent of the book
profit."
F
. 7. The whole purpose of section 115J was to tax a company
~h1ch had no taxable income, but showed a book profit. For
mstan~e, _a comp~~y which adopted the method of straight-line
depreciation (as 1t 1s entitled to do under the Companies Act
19~6 (hereinafter ~eferred to as "the 1956 Act"), or a compan;
which h_ad not debited to its profit and loss account, the capital G
expenditure_ on scientific research and develoi;,;nent which is
fully deductible under section 35 of the 1961 Act would be
assessed to tax under this section.
8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A profit & loss account the assessee has debited depreciation at
the rates prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This has
been the consistent practice of the assessee throughout. Section
211 (2) of the 1956 Act mandates that every profit and loss
account of a company shall give a true and fair view of the profit
8 or loss of the company for the financial year and shall comply
with the requirements of Parts-II of Schedule VI so far as they
are applicable thereto. The accounts of the assessee for the
relevant assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 are audited
under section 227 of the 1956 Act. The audit report confirms
c that the accounts of the assessee represent a "true and fair view".
The accounts have further been passed and approved by the
general body of shareholders at the Annual General Meeting.
The said accounts have been filed with the Registrar of
Companies and no objections have been raised in relation to
them.
0
9. It was further submitted that under section 115J the
assessee has the obligation to prepare his profit and loss
account as per Parts-II and Ill of Schedule VI to the 1956Act. No
dispute has been raised at any stage of the proceedings by the
E revenue that the profit & loss account of the assessee is not in
compliance with the provisions of the 1956 Act, particularly
Schedule VI, Parts II and Ill. In Schedule VI, there is no reference
to sections 205 and 350 or Schedule XIV to the 1956 Act.
10. The appellant referred to Note 3 (iv) to Part II
F (Requirements as to profit and loss account) of Schedule VI to . •,
the 1956 Act which reads as under:
"The amount provided for depreciation, renewals or
diminution in value of fixed assets.
G If such provision is not made by means of a depreciation
charge, the method adopted for making such provision.
If no provision is made for depreciation, the fact that no
provision has been made shall be stated and the quantum
of arrears of depreciation computed in accordance with
H
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 221
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEERBHANDARI, J.]
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A 12. It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of
the appellant that this case is squarely covered by a three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. etc. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi etc. (2002) 9 SCC 1.
In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to examine the
B Apollo Tyres's case in detail.
13. In Apollo Tyres (supra}, this Court examined the object
of introducing section 11 SJ in the 1961 Act. The Court relied on
the budget speech of the then Hon'ble Finance Minister of India
made in the Parliament while introducing the said section. The
C relevant portion of the speech is reproduced as under:
"It is only fair and proper that the prosperous should pay
at least some tax. The phenomenon of so-called 'zero-tax'
highly profitable companies deserves attention. In 1983,
a new Section 80-WA was inserted in the Act so that all
D
profitable companies pay some tax. This does not seem
to have helped and is being withdrawn. I now propose to
introduce a provision whereby every company will have to
pay a 'minimum corporate tax' on the profits declared by
it in its own accounts. Under this new provision, a company
E will pay tax on at least 30% of its book profit. In other
words, a domestic widely held company will pay tax of at
least 15% of its book profit. This measure will yield a
revenue gain of approximately Rs.75 crores."
F The Court held that the purpose of introducing this section
was that the Income Tax Authorities were unable to bring certain
companies within the net of income tax because these
companies were adjusting their accounts in such a manner as
to attract no tax or very little tax. It is with a view to bring such of
G these companies within the tax net that section 11 SJ was
introduced in the 1961 Act with a deeming provision which
makes the company liable to pay tax on at least 30% of its book
profits as shown in its own account. For the said purpose, section r
11 SJ makes the income reflected in the companies' books of
accounts as the deemed income for the purpose of assessing
H
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 223
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
the tax. If we examine the said provision in the above A
background, we notice that the use of the words "in accordance
with the provisions of Parts II and Ill of Schedule VI to the
Companies Act was made for the limited purpose of
empowering the assessing authority to rely upon the authentic
statement of accounts of the company. While so looking into B
the accounts of the company, an Assessing Officer under the
!
Income Tax Act has to accept the authenticity of the accounts
with reference to the provisions of the Companies Act which
obligates the company to maintain its account in a manner
provided by the Companies Act and the same to be scrutinized c
and certified by statutory auditors and will have to be approved
by the company in its general meeting and thereafter to be filed
before the Registrar of Companies who has a statutory obligation
-I also to examine and satisfy that the accounts of the company
are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the
D
Companies Act. In spite of all these procedures contemplated
... under the provisions of the Companies Act, the Court observed
that it is difficult to accept the argument of the Revenue that it is
still open to the Assessing Officer to rescrutinize this account
and satisfy himself that these accounts have been maintained
in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The E
Court categorically held that:
"The Assessing Officer while computing the income under
Section 115-J has only the power of examining whether
the books of account are certified by the authorities under F
the Companies Act as having been properly maintained
< I in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing
Officer thereafter has the limited power of making
increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation
to the said section. To put it differently, the Assessing
G
Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net
profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the
extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115-J."
14. Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated that this case is H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A fully covered by detailed reasoning given by this Court in the
case of Apollo Tyres. He further submitted that the reasoning
of this case has been accepted in a large number of judgments
of the High Courts.
'15. Mr. Vellapally placed reliance on a division bench
B judgment of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Sona Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 160
Taxman 22 and submitted that in this case also the assessee
had provided for depreciation in its profit & loss account by
adopting the rates prescribed in the Income-tax Rules. The
C Assessing Officer claimed that the depreciation for the purposes
of section 115J was permissible as per Schedule XIV to the
Companies Act. The High Court relying upon the decision in
Apollo tyres rejected the view taken inter a/ia by the Kerala
High Court in Malaya/a Manorama (2002) 253 ITR 378.
D
16. Mr. Vellapally also submitted that the respondent
revenue has accepted the judgment delivered by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana in the aforesaid judgment and did not
challenge the same by filing Special Leave Petition before this
Court.
E
17. Mr. Vellapally has also drawn our attention to the
division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kinetic
Motors v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 262
ITR 33 and submitted that in this case the Bombay High Court
F relied on the said judgment of Apollo Tyres and held the issue
in favour of the assessee. In this case, the Division Bench of the ' '
Bombay High Court observed as under:
"The short question that arises for consideration in this tax
appeal is whether it is open to the Assessing Officer to
G make adjustment to the book profits beyond what is
authorised by the definition given in Explanation to Section
115J of the Income-tax Act, if the accounts are prepared
and certified to be in accordance with Parts II and Ill of
Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In the case of
H Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002] 255 JTR 273, the apex court held
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 225
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
· that while computing the income under Section 115J of A
the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer has only power
to examine whether the books of account were certified
by the authorities under the Companies Act as having
been properly maintained in accordance with the
Companies Act. It is further held that the Assessing Officer s
thereafter has limited powers of making increases and
j reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said
section. The apex court further held that the Assessing
Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net
profits shown in the profit and loss account, except to the c
extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J of the
Income-tax Act. In the instant case, the accounts maintained
by the assessee are certified by the auditors. Under the
circumstances, the book adjustment made by the
Assessing Officer being contrary to the decision of the D
apex court, question No. 1 is answered in the negative
and in favour of the assessee.
In view of our answer to question No. 1, question No. 2
becomes academic. It is not in dispute that under the
Companies Act, 1956, both straight line method and written E
down value method are recognised. Therefore, once the
amount of depreciation actually debited to the profit and
loss account is certified by the auditors, then, as per the
decision of the apex court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd.
[2002] 255 ITR 273, question No. 2 has to be answered F
in the negative and in favour of the assessee."
18. Mr. Vellapally further placed reliance on
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Loyal Textiles Mills Ltd.
(2003) 261 ITR 307 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax
v. Thiroo Arooran Sugars Ltd. (2006) 152 Taxman 344 G
(Madras), Cochin Cada/as (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (2002) 125 Taxman 47 (Kerala) and Rajasthan
Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax (2006) 281 ITR 177 (Rajasthan). All these
judgments have been decided on the basis of the ratio of the> H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A decision of this Court in Apollo Tyres (supra). He further
submitted that the respondent revenue has accepted the
decisions of the High Courts in all these cases and did not
challenge the same by filing Special Leave Petitions before this
Court
B 19. Mr. Vikram Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-Revenue submitted that in the instant case
three questions were raised before the High Court, one at the
instance of the Revenue and two questions at the instance of
assessee.
c
The question raised by the revenue was:
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the tribunal was right in upholding the order of the
CIT (Appeals) directing the assessing officer to allow the
D claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules for the
purposes of computing the book profit under section 115J
of the Companies Act?" ..
The questions raised by the assessee are as under:
E "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the finding
of the CIT (Appeals) that the proceeding of the
assessing authority dated 09.10.2002, was a valid
order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act?
F 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the tribunal was justified in law in upholding the + '
computation under section 115J through the order
passed on 09.10.1992?"
G 20 Mr. Gulati submitted that the facts of this case are that
for the assessment years 1988-89. the assessee filed a return
declaring loss of Rs.1. 12,293/- and claimed the refund of
Rs 8.62. 730/- pre paid as tax. The Deputy Commissioner of •
Income Tax (Asst). Special Range, Kottayam rejected the
H figures returned by the assessee and assessed the total income
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 227
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Ji.
at Rs.47,26,270/- and imposed a tax of Rs.25,99,448/- as well A
as a surcharge of Rs.1,29,972/- totaling Rs.27,29,420/-. After
adjusting advance tax paid, as well as the TDS deducted, the
Assessing Officer created a total demand of Rs.26,83,327/-. It
is relevant to mention here that since the provision of section
80W stood deleted with effect from 01.4.1988 the claim made B
under that section was rejected.
!
21. ltwas submitted that Chapter Xll-B containing "special
provisions relating to certain companies" was introduced in the
Income Tax Act by the Finance Act 1987 with effect from
01.4.1988. From the assessment year 1988-89, section 115J c
was introduced into the 1961 Act, which replaced section 80VV
of the Act. Section 115J provided that where the total income of
a company as computed under the Income Tax Act in respect of
any accounting year was less than 30% of its book profit, as
defined in the explanation, the total income of the company, D
chargeable to tax, shall be deemed to be an amount equal to
.• 30% of such book profit. The whole purpose of this section was
to tax a company, which has no taxable income, merely because
it shows book profit. Book profit as explained in this section
meant the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for E
the relevant previous year prepared under sub section (1A) of
section 115J as increased by the amounts referred to in clauses
(a) to (ha) of the Act. It should be noted that the words "prepared
under sub-section (1A)" were introduced by the Finance Act,
1989, with effect from 01.4.1989. F
_.. \ 22. Sub-section (1 A) to section 115J reads as follows:
"Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes
of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the
relevant previous year, in accordance with the provisions
G
of Part II, and Ill of Schedule VI to the Companies Act.
1956 (1 of 1956)."
23. This sub-section (1A) to section 115J of the 1961 Act
would have application fortheA.Y. 1989-90,which is the subject
matter of ITR Nos.289 and 293 of 1999. But would have no H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 6 S.C.R.
A application to the A.Y. 1988-89, which is the subject matter of
ITR Nos.245 and 259 of 1999.
24. Explanation (ha) (iv) to section 115J, which would be
relevant to both assessment years 1988-89, as well as 1989-
90 and introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1989 reads as follows:
B
"(ha). The amount deemed to be the profits under sub-
section (3) of section 33AC:
if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited or,
as the case may be, the amount referred to in clauses (g)
C and (h) is not credited to the profits and loss account, as
as reduced by. -
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
D
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation
which would be required to be set off against the profit of
the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b)
E of the~ first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) are applicable."
25. Mr. Gulati further submitted that before the High Court,
it was argued by counsel for the revenue that section 205 of the
Companies Act, 1956 has been legislatively incorporated into
F the Income Tax Act for the purposes of section 115J and since
this is a legislation by incorporation, the said provision of the ... '.
Companies Act, 1956 has to be applied as indicated by that
provision in the Companies Act. It was also pointed out that in
section 205 of the Companies Act, it has been provided that for
G the purposes of calculating depreciation under section 205(1 ),
the same could be provided to the extent specified under section
350 of the Companies Act. A reference to section 350 of the
Companies Act would show that the amount of depreciation to ..
be deducted shall be the amount. calculated with reference to
H the written down value of the assets, as shown by the books of
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. v. COMMNR OF 229
INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
'
the company at the end of the financial year expiring at the A
commencement of the Act or immediately thereafter and at the
end of each subsequent financial year and the rates specified
in Schedule XIV to the Companies Act Therefore, according to
the revenue, the calculation of depreciation in terms of the
Companies Act and Schedule XIV thereof becomes a must, B
while assessing an assessee under section 115J of the Income
Tax Act
26. Mr. Gulati further submitted that the question raised in
the case of Sona Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) shows that
the assessee was trying to claim depreciation as per Income C
Tax Rules on the ground that the same was based on the views
expressed by the then chairman of the CBDT in a departmental
publication. It is clear that the views expressed by the Chairman
of the CBDT cannot override the Act and have clearly to be
rejected in case they are not consistent with the Act He D
;.
submitted that the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Dynamic Orthopaedics Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 257
ITR 446 as well as Malaya/a Manorama (supra) and the M.P.
High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 693 have all held E
that for the purposes of section 115J of the Act, depreciation
could not be calculated as per provisions of the Income Tax
Rules. Only the Gujarat High Court in the case of Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman Fabrics (P) Ltd.
(2002) 254 ITR 431 has upheld the view that the circular of the F
Company Law Board laid down only minimum depreciation for
the purposes of distribution of the dividend and the company
could decide to give a higher depreciation. Mr. Gulati also
contended that the Punjab & Haryana High Court has preferred
to follow the minority view and has ignored the majority view G
taken by two High Courts, namely the Kerala High Court as well
as the M.P. High Court.
27. Mr. Gulati also rei: .,d upon the case of J.K. Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India (2008) 297 ITR 176 (SC). On proper
analysis of the said case, we find that this case also does not H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A help the Revenue.
28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and carefully perused the written submissions filed by
them. In our considered opinion, the controversy involved in this
case is no longer res integra. A three Judge Bench of this Court
8 in Apollo Tyres (supra) has clearly interpreted section 11 SJ of
the 1961 Act. There is no scope for any further discussion.
29. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. In
c the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties
to bear their own costs.
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "section 115J"Sign in to search