COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference three questions of law stand referred to us by the Tribunal, two at the instance of the CIT and one at the instance of the assessee.

(2.) THE three questions pertain to three amounts which were claimed by the assessee as constituting reserves for the purpose of computing the capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. These three items pertain to the asst. year 1963 64 and were: Question No.1 pertains to the amount set aside as a provision for gratuity. Question No. 2 pertains to the amount set aside for proposed dividend. Question No. 3 (as we shall designate it) referred to us at the instance of the assessee pertains to the amount set aside by the assessee company as provision for taxation. These three questions are as under:

(3.) AS far as the other two questions which are properly referred to us are concerned, it has been fairly stated by Mr. Dastur appearing on behalf of the assessee that question No. 2 is concluded in favour of the Commissioner and against the assessee by the Supreme Court by its decision given in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). It was not the case of the assessee that a higher amount was provided for than the one actually distributed subsequently as dividend and if that be so, the matter would seem to be squarely concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. As far as the said question in discussion, it is unnecessary to elaborate the material further. Question No. 2 is accordingly answered in the negative and against the assessee.