BHARAT FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NEW DELHI versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

626

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1964]

J964

..4.pril 2

BHARAT FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NEW DELHI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

[K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.J

Inco-rne Tax-Dividend declared out o.f premitl1ns on shares receii;ed hu a company--Amount vJhether receipt o.f dividend Whether tuxab!e-What is dividend-Effect of s. 78. Companie• Act, 1956-Indian Income-tax Act. 1922, s. 2(6A).

The Rohtas Industries Ltd. i'5ued in 1945 shares at a pre mium and the share premiums so received were kept separate under the head Capital Reserve. In the calendar year ending Decemb2r 31, 1953, the company peid a sum of Rs. 50,787/- as dividend to the apn2llant company, For the year 1954-55, th's sum was taxed in the hands of appellant as dividend by the In come-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, but the same was re stored by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal re ferred to the Punjab High Court the question whether on the facts and in the receipt cf Rs. 50,787 /- was a receipt of dividend and was taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court answered the question against tho appellant and the latter appealed this Court with special leave. Dismissing the appeal.

the circumstances of

the case,

the Companies Act,

Heid: The receipt of Rs. 50,787 /- was a receipt of dividend and "'as taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was that well-established before issue of shares were profits premiums received on the available for distribution and the word "profits" in Re gulation 97 of Table A of Companies Act 1913 should be under stood to include share premiums also. S. 78 of the Companies taxability of dividends Act does not in any way change the declared out of premiums on shares received by a Company before the Act of 1956 came into force. If it was taxable; apart from s. 78, it remains so taxable.

1956,

Re Hoare & Co. Ltd., (1904) 2 Ch. 208; Drown v. Gaumint British Picture Corporation, (1937) Ch. 402; re Duff's Settlements. National Provincial Bank Ltd., vs. Gregson, (1961) 1 Ch. 923; Land Revenue Commissioners v. Reids Trustees, (1949) 1 All E.R. 354, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 613 / 1963. Appeal by special the judgment dated leave from December 12. 1960, of the Punjab High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1958.

S. K. Kapur, K. K . . Jain, Bishambar Lal Khanna and

S. Murthy, for the appellant.

C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy

Iyer

and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent.

7 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

627

April 2, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered

1964

~-~~ General Insurance co. Ltd .• New Del/ii

~

l.cu•Ddhi Sikri, J.

SIKRJ, J.-The appellant is a Joint Stock Company, here- inafter referred to as the assessee, having its registered office in Delhi. It held 11950 'B' Preference shares in another com-The oom~·;.,,;on., pany, called Rohtas Industries Ltd., in the previous year of l;icome Ta•, (calendar year ending December 31, 1953). The latter com- pany paid a sum of Rs. 50,787 /- as dividend on the said Pre- ference Shares to the assessee, and for the assessment year 1954-55. this sum was taxed in the hands of the <issessee as dividend, within s. 2(6A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, by the Income Tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner, on appeal by the assessee, held it not to be taxable. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on an appeal by the Department, however. agreed with the Income Tax Officer and allowed the appeal. On the application of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal stated a case for the opinion of the Punjab High Court. The High Court upheld the contention of the Department and answered the question referred to it against the assessee. The assessee. after failing to get a certificate under s. 66A(2) of the Income Tax Act. obtained special leave from this Court and now the appeal is before us for dis- · posal.

~

The question referred to the High Court is as follows:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 50,787 /- was a receipt of dividend and is taxable under the Indian Income Tax Act."

The facts and circumstances referred to in the questicn are as follows. Rohtas Industries Ltd .. hereim1ft·~r referred to as the declaring company. had in the year 1946 issued shares at a premium and the share premiums so received by it were kept separate under the head 'Capital Reserve'. The declaring company declared a dividend in the previous year of the a;. sessee out of the above capita 1 reserve.

The learned counsel for the assessee contends before us that the sum received by the assessee is not dividend witliin the definition of the word in s. 2(6A) of the Income Tax Act. H~ 'Says. th~t the share premi~m~ were not profits capable of bemg distributed as profits w1thm Regulation 97 of Table A of Companies Act of 1913 which lays down that "no dividend shall be paid otherwise than out of the profits of the year or any other undistributed profits." He argues further that it was a capi!al gain in the hands of the dccla~ing company and capi tal gams are expressly excluded from the definition of 'divi dend' by the explanation to s. 2(6A) which provides that 'the

628

.SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1964]

1904

Bharat Fire and General I nmrance Co. Ltd., ..1.Yew Delhi v. The Commi.s.siontr of lnco11u.Ta'e, ll~ew Delhi

Sil:ri, J.

expression "accumulated profits" wherever it occurs in this clause shall not include capital gains arising before the l st day of April, 1946\ or after the.31st day of March, 1948'. Lastly, he urges that in any event, ·s. 78 of the Companies Act, 1956, has placed this sum beyond the reach of the Revenue.

Before adverting· to the arguments addressed to us. it is necessary to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. Sec tion 2(6A) of the Income Tax Act defines· 'dividend' as fol lows:~

"(6A) 'di~idend' includes- fa) any distrib4tion by a company of accumulated pro fits, whether capitalised or not. if such distribu· tion entails the release by the company to its share holders of all or any part of the assets of the com pany; (b). , ...... ,. """ .. (c) ....... :: ...... , .. : Provided that (d) ................. .

Provided that .......... .

Provided further that the expression "accumulated pro fits", wherever it occurs in this clause. shall not include capital gains arising before the !st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948."

Section '78~ of the Companies Act, 1956, reads:-

"78; (I) Where a -company issues shares at a premium, . whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the aggregate amount or value of the premiums on . those .shares shall be transferred to an account, to be called "the share premium account"; and the provisions of this Act relating to the reduction of the share capital of a company shall, except as provided in this section';°apply as if the share pre· mium account were paid-up share capital of the company.

(2) The share premium account may, notwithstandi11g anything in sub-section (!), be applied by the com· pany-

(a) in paying up unissued shares of the company to be issued to members of the company as fully paid bonus shares;

{b) in writing off the preliminary expenses of the com·

pany;

7S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

629

(c) in writing off the expenses of, or the commission paid 1lr discount allowed on, any issue of shares or debentures of the company: or

1961

Bharat Fire and General J nsurance Co. Ltd., Xew Del/Ii

(d) in providing for the premium payable on the re·

demption of any redeemable preference shares or The 00,!;.;.,.wner of any debentures of the compJ •

of Inwm.-Ta , bT ew lJeT.ki

l) Where a company has, before the commencement of this Act, issued any shares at a premium, this section shall apply as if the shares had been issued after the commencement of this Act:

Sikri, J.

Provided that any part of the premiums that it does not at which has been so applied the commencement of from an identifiable part of the company's reserves within the meaning of Schedule VI, shall be disregarded in determining the sum to be included in the share premium account."

this Act

It is evident from the definition of the word 'dividend' that if a distribution of accumulated profits, whether capita· lised or not, entails the release by the company to its share holder of all or any part of its assets, it is dividend. It is not disputed that the distribution of Rs. 50,787 /- entails the re lease of the assets of the declaring company. But it is contend ed that there was no distribution of accumulated profits, be cause by virtue of Regulation 97, Table A of the Companies Act, 1913, no dividend could be paid otherwise than out of the profits of the year or any other undistributed profits. It is said that the premiums received by the declaring company were not profits within Regulation 97. We are unable to ac cede to this contention. Previous to the enactment of s. 78 of the Companies Act of 1956, and the corresponding section in the English ,Companies Act, it was recognised that a company could distribute premiums received on the issue of shares as dividend~ (vide Palmer's Company Law, Twentieth Edition). At page 637, it is stated:

"It is evident from the preceding observations that it is legally permissible for the company to distribute dividend out of assets which do not represent pro fits made as the result of its trading or business. The connotation of divisible profits, or profits in the legal sense, is much wider than that of profits in the business sense: the former term includes, e.g., reserves accumulated from past profits, from realised capital profits indeed, before the require ment of a share premium account by the 194 7-48 legislation, from premiums obtained on issue of

1964

Bharat Fire and Gene.ral lns?.1rar.:;,, l'o. Ltd., .Yen' .Delhi v. Tlie Gonunissioner of lru:ome-11a.r, ,Yen' Del/ii

Si!.·1i, J.

630

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1964]

new shares, whereas none of these items is regard ed-and rightly so-by the businessman or accountant as trading profits."

Palmer relies on two cases: Re Hoare & Co. Ltd.,(') and Drown v. Caumin-Britislz Picture Corporation('). In Re Hoare'.1· (') case the company had created a reserve fund con sisting partly of premiums received on the issue of preference shares. It having incurred a loss arising from the depreciation in the value of the public houses below the amount stated in the company's balance sheet, applied for sanction of the Court to a scheme for reduction of capital whereby the company, while retaining a small portion of the reserve, attributed to the reserve more than its rateable proportion and to capital account less than that of its rateable proportion Buckley J. ap parently held that these premiums were not 'profits' in the strict sense; and, en appeal, the counsel for the company con the Court of Appeal that this was wrong. tended befort' Romer, L.J., disposed of this contention in the following \.vords";

"The surplus which was carried to the reserve fund re presented that which might have been properly ap plied at the time, if the company had so thought fit, in paying further dividends to shareholders and no person could have complained if they had done so".

·

Thus, Romer, L.J., thought that there was nothing objec tionable in utilising premiums received on the issue of shares for the purpose of declaring dividend.

In Drown's case('), a company proposed

to pay a divi dend on its preference s:iares and utilise in part premiums re ceived by the company on the issue of shares, which had in fact been invested in the assets of the company. The plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain the company from paying the dividend. Clauson, J., held that part of a reserve fund con sisting of moneys paid by way of premiums on shares, unless set aside in some particular fund which has been wholly spent, is available for dividend purposes. We are not concerned with other points that arose in the case and we have only set out the facts and findings relevant to the question before us. We may here set out Article 129 of the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd. Article 129 reads thus; -

"The Directors may, with the sanction of a general. meeting, from time to time declare dividends or bonuses, but no such dividend shaU (except as by

--------,-----=---::-:~- --

(') [1904] 2 Ch. 208.

. (') (1937] Ch. 402.

7 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

631

the statutes expressly authorised) be payable otherwise than out of the profits of the company m,""" Fi" awl

1964

•••• , , , , , •• , • • • • • •

" ,

()\·nr·r11l ft1J>urance

Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for the app~llant, had con- tended that the English Law was different inasmuch as what was prohibited in English Law was payment of dividends out 1'~1 ?:::;,:,~':~:;:-;:' of capital and that it <lid not enjoin directors to pay dividends ' out of profits. This case refutes Mr. Kapur's contention. In re Duff's Sett/eme11ts, National Provincial Bank Ltd .. vs. Greg son,(') which is strongly relied on behalf of the appellant, and which we will advert to in detail later, Jenkins, L.J., says at p. 926:---

New Delhi

1':1ikri, .].

g;•;,, 1fl~ii,; v.

"The share premiums would have been profits available (see Druwn v. Gaumo11t-Britislz

for distribution Picrure Corporation)"(').

It was thus well-established before the Act of 1956 and the corresponding English Act that premiums received on the issue of shares were profits available for distrib~tion. We are of the opinion that the same connotation should be attached to the word 'profits' in Regulation 97 of Table A. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to pronounce on the question whether even if these premiums were not profits within Regu lation 97, would this necessarily exclude them from coming with the words 'accumulated profits' within s. 2(6A)(a).

This takes up to the next point raised before us: Are the ·

premiums received on the issue of shares capital gains within the explanation to s. 2(6A)? This point was not urged before the High Court or the Appellate Tribunal and we did not al low it to be developed.

The last point may now be dealt with. In this connection it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of s. 78 of the Com panies Act, 1956. Sub-section (!) enjoins a company, when it issues shares at a premium, to transfer the premiums to an account called 'the Share Premium Account' and it then ap plies the provisions of the Act relating to the reduction of the the share premium account share capital of a company as if were paid-up capital of the company. Sub-section (2) then pro vides how the share premium account may be applied. It I~ said that it impliedly provides that it cannot be used for the purpose of p:.ying dividends. Sub-section (3) then deals with the issue of shares at a premium before the commencement of this Act. It deems them to have been issued after the com mencement cf the Act and applies the provisions of s. 78. The effect of this would be that company which has issued shares at a premium before the commencement of the Act would by

(') [1937] Ch. 402.

(') [1951] 1 Ch. 923.

•

632

SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS

[1964J

1964

Bharat Fire ancl General lnsurawe Go. Ltcl.. New Del/ti v. P!tt Com11tissionr·r of Incmne-1'a:v, New Ddhi

virtue of s. 78, have to open a share premium account. and transfer to it the premium so received. What is to happen if before the commencement of tire Act the company has already dealt with the premiums in such a way that they had ceased to remain as an identifiable part of the company's reserves? The sub-section says that in that event the premiu.ms so dealt with shall be disregarded in determining the sum to be included in the share premium account. If such premiums are to be dis regarded for the creation of the share premium account, it means that they fall outside the purview of s. 78. It has no ap ·plication to them. If this is so, it is difficult to appreciate how the appellant can utilise this section for the purpose of show ing that the premiums which have already been distributed became invested with the character of capital in the hands of the distributing company. We do not say that for the purpose· of income tax any future application of the share premium ac count in one of the ways mentioned in sub-section (2) will be treated as distribution of capital. No such question arises for our determination in this case. But we do hold that s. 78 of the Companies Act does not in any way change the taxability of dividends declared out of premiums on shares received by a Company before the Act of 1956 came into force. If it was taxable. apart from s. 78; it remains so taxable.

The case of Duff's Settlements(') referred to above, on which the learned counsel strongly relied, might or might not help him if the declaration of dividend had taken place after the Act of 1956. We are of the opinion that what was decided in this case has no relevance to the facts of this appeal.

Before concluding. we may refer to the decision of the House of Lords in Land Revenue Con11nissio11ers v. Reids Trustees('). relied on by the learned counsel for the respon dents. This case would be relevant if we were considering generally whether the receipt of Rs. 50,781 !- was income or capital in the hands of the assessee. The question, however, re ferred to the High Court is limited. and that is whether the receipt of Rs. 50, 787 /- was a receipt of dividend and taxable. It is, therefore, unnecessary to say more about this case.

In the result, we agree with the High Court that the ans- wer to question referred to it is in the affirmative. The appeal fails and is dismissed with cost.

•

l'l [1951] 1 Ch. 923.

(') [1949] 1 All E.R. 354.

Appeal dismissed ..