Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ‘proposed dividend reserve’ of Rs. 1,09,03,751 constitutes ‘ Other reserves’ within the meaning of r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?

Counsel Appeared

Dr. V. Balasubramanian, S. V. Naik & K. C. Sidhwa, for the Revenue : P. J. Pardiwala, i/b M/s Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Assessee

S. P. BHARUCHA, J. :

The question raised at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ‘proposed dividend reserve’ of Rs. 1,09,03,751 constitutes ‘ Other reserves’ within the meaning of r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?”

Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 28 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). The question is so answered.

No order as to costs.

[Citation :185 ITR 672]