Distribution by liquidators of a company's current-year profits to shareholders on liquidation held capital, not dividend, in shareholders' hands for assessment year 1955-56; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•·
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS
v.
M. V. MURUGAPPAN & ORS.
April 24, 1970
[J.C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Income Tax Act. 1922, s. 2(6-A)(c)--Company i11 liquidation-Distribution of profits earned in year of liquidation to shareholders if liable to tax q.s dividend.
The respondents were shareholders of a public limited company. The Company ll'aintained ito accounts according to the Calendar Y car. The company wont into liquidation on October 31, 1954. The Liquidators of the company distributed on March IO, 1955 among the sharcnoldero for each share of the cornpany a share of another company " share of equal face value. The d·istribution was made out of profits earned by the company between January 1, 1954 and October 31, 1954. The lncorr,etax Officer brought the value of the shares received by the shareho[dors to ta,~ on the footing that it repr~.sented "accumulated profits" as conterr1D plated by s. 2f6A) (c) of the Income-tax Act. !9122. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the profits earned between January 1. 1954 and October 31, 1954 were not accumulated profits and when d;stributed the amount in question represepted capital in the hands of the share-holders. Thi> order was confirmed by the Tribunal and upon a reference, by the High Court. On appeal to this Court,
\ ) J
E
F
G
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
The question whether the distribution was dividend had to be .determined in the light of the provisions of s. 2(6A) (c) o'f the Income-ta" Act as . •mended by the Finance Act of 1955. The amount distributed by the liquid•tor on March 10, 1955, represented the current profits and not profits earned before January 1, 1954. The a'!lount distributed as divi. dend out of the current profih could not, in the state of Jaw in force in the year of assessment 1955-56, be deemed dividend in the h1nds of the shareholdm. f.381 A-Bl
Birch v. Cropper (1889) L.R, 14 A.C. 525; Commi.<Sioner of Inland Revenue v. George Burra! (1924) 2 K.B. 52; Staffordshire Coal and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Brogan (Inspector of Taxes) 54 I.T.R. 555; Appavu Chettiar v. Co1n1nissioner of Income-tax, Madras 29 I.T.R. 768; Girdhardas & Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incmne-tai Ahmedabad 31 I.T.R. 82; First Income-tax Officer, Salem s·. Short Brothers (P) Ltd. 60 I.T.R. 82, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 566 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1965 H of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 162 of 1963.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, G. C. Sharma and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
I ~
K. Srinivasan and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for respondents Nos. I to 10.
The Judgment ·of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal submitted the following question under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, B 1922, to the High Court of Madras for opinion :
. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 81,611 and Rs. 1,49,444 were not the part of the accumulated profits of the Company as on December 3 I, 1954 as contemplated under s. 2(GAJ(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 ?'"
c
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. The Commissjoner of Income-tax asked for and obtained a certificate fron1 the High Court only in respect of the amount of Rs. 81,611. This appeul is therefore restricted to the claim of the Revenue that the amount of Rs. 81,611 was not part of the "accumulated profit!> of the Company as 011 October 31, 1954 as contemplated by s. 2t6A)lcJ of the Income-tax Act, 1922." ·
D
Ajax Products Ltd. was a pub!ic limited company incorporated in 1939. It maintained its accounts accor!iing to the calendar year. The respondents to this appeal were shareholders of the Company. The Company "went into liquidation on October 31, 1954". The liquidators of the Company distributed on March 10, 1955 to the shareholders for each share Rs. 100 by allotment of a share in Carbornndum Universal Ltd. of the sam~ face value. Between January l, 1954 and October 31, 1954 the Company earned a profit of Rs. 1,79,704. On the profit of Rs. 1, 79, 704 the Company was assessed to pay Rs. 98,09J as tax, leaving a balarke of Rs. 81,611 which formed part of the amount distributed. The Income-tax Officer brought the value of the share received by the shareholders to tax, on the footing that it represented "accumulated profits": In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commisioner held that under relaw as it then stood, the amount of Rs. 81,611 was not accumulated profits and when distrib11':;.l it was capital in the hands of the shareholders. This order w~confi.rmed by the Tribunal. The High Court agreed with the.~Yiew of the Tribunal that under the definition of the expression "dividend" in s. 2 ( 6A )( c) in force in the year of assessment 1955-56 distribution of the current profits in the year in which the Company was ordered to be wound up was not dividend and was on that account not liable to be taxed ;is dividend.
E
F
H
C.I.T. V. MURUGAPPAN (Shah, J.)
379
) r' '
A
Under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, no dividend could be paid otherwise· than out cf profits of the year or undistributed profits of previous years. A Company as a going concern may distribute by way of dividend to the shareholders profits of the year or accumulated profits of the previous years. But a share in the assets of the Company distributed i;n the course of winding B up is of the nature of capital and not of dividend, and it cannot be apportioned into capital and accumulated profits.
In Birch v. Crcpper (1 ), Lord Macnaghten observed :
c
I)
"I think it rather leads to confusion to speak of the assets which are the subject of this application as 'surplus as!~ts' as if they were an accretion or addition to the capita\ of the company caP.able of being distinguished from it and open to different considerations. They are part and parcel of the property of the . company-part and parcel of the jomt stock or common fund-which at the date of the winding up represented the capital of the company."
This view was affirmed .in a later J"udgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. George Burrel ,(2 ) where Pollock, M. R. observed :
E
" ..... It is a misapprehension, after the liquidator has assumed his duties to continue the distinction bet· ween surplus profits and capital."
F
G
H
This decisfo.n was receritly affirmed by the House of Lords in Staffordshire Coal and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Brogan (Inspector of Taxes)('). The House of Lords held that there was no ground for making an exception to the general rule that the surplus assets of a company, after providing for all liabilities. were divisible among its members as capital. Accordingly, the receipt by a constituent company of its appropriate proportions of the distributed surplus wa~ a receipt of a capital nature. Lord Evershed observed at p. 565 :
"It cannot now be in doubt that surplus assets in the .hands of the liquidator of a limited liability companywhether limited by share capital or by guarantee-are in his ;iands capital. Such a conclusion was laid down 1:-v the Court of Appeal in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Burref-(1924)2 K.B. 52 (see e~pecialy per Atkin L.J. ), and it has never since been questioned."
(I) (1889) L.R. 14 A.C. 525. (2) <1924) 2 J<.P. 52. (1) 54 J.T.R. 555.
(1971] l S.C.R. A
'UP!>EME COURT REPORTS
1'h~ Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when originally enacted. c0ntaiued no definition of "dividend" : the expression '·dividend .. h:id therefore the same meaning as it had in the Indian Companies f\Cl, 1913, and the amount distributed among the shareholders 1'v the liauidator out of the assets of the company after m~eting the Jiaoilities was regarded as a capital receipt \n the haP.·.ls of ~le >l:areholders. In 1939 the Indian Legislature incorp<" ated , _:_ . 2 of rhe Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1 'l39, an incl11Sive deMition of the express "dividend". Clau>e I cJ cf tha! definition read :
"any distribution made to th;, shareholders of a ~om pa·ny out of accumulated profits of the company on the liquidation of the company :
B
c
Provided that only the accumulated profits so distributed which arose during the six previous years of the company preceding the date of liquidation shall be so included;"
But the profits of the year in the course of which the Company was ordered to be wound up not being accumulated profits \Vere not part of the dividend : Appavu Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras;(') Girdhardas & Company Ltd. v. Comrni~ sioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad;(2 ) and also the observations of this Court in First Income-tax Officer, Salem x. Short Brothus (P) Ltd. (6 ) at pp. 88 & 89.
D
E
I•
Clause (c) to s. 2(6A) was amended by the Finance Act of 1955 and the proviso :o cl. ( c) was deleted. The only eftecl of deleting the proviso was to remove the limitation providing that distribution of profits of the six previous years preceding the date of liquidation only was dividend. ·
By the Finance Act of 1956, cl. (c) was replaced by the following clause :
"any distribution made to the shareholders of a company on its liquidation, rci the extent to which the distribution is attributable to the accumulated profits of the company immediately before its liquidation, whether capitalised or not;"
G
This amendment came into operation as from April !, 1956
We are in this case concerned with the distribution of Rs. 1.00 by allotment of a share in the Carborundum Universal Ltd. made H (I) 29 l.T.R. 768. (21 31 IT. R. 81. (3) 60 l.T.R. 83
•
''
C.I.T. V, MuRUGAPPAN (Shah, ·J.)
The appeal thet eforc falls and is d1smi,,ed with costs.
RK.P.S.
Appeul dismis~ed .
•
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the distribution of Rs. 81,611 by the liquidator out of profits earned in the year of liquidation was part of accumulated profits under s. 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Birch v. CropperRelied on
(1889) L.R. 14 A.C. 525
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. George BurrelRelied on
(1924) 2 K.B. 52
Staffordshire Coal and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Brogan (Inspector of Taxes)Relied on
54 I.T.R. 555
Appavu Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, MadrasReferred
29 I.T.R. 768
Girdhardas & Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AhmedabadReferred
31 I.T.R. 82
First Income-tax Officer, Salem v. Short Brothers (P) Ltd.Referred
60 I.T.R. 82
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras
M. V. Murugappan
Others (respondents Nos. 2 to 10)
J. C. Shah
K. S. Hegde
A. N. Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
