Netherlands Steam Navigation Company
Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1969] INSC 81 (14 March
1969)
14/03/1969 SHAH, J.C.
SHAH, J.C.
RAMASWAMI, V.
CITATION: 1969 AIR 1262 1970 SCR (1) 1 1969
SCC (2) 84
ACT:
Income-tax Act 1922 section 10(2)
(vi-a)-Non-residentCompany -Taxable profits computed by special formula evolved
by Income-tax Officer and not under second method in rule 33 Income-tax Rules
of 1922-Whether initial and additional depreciation admissible.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant is a non-resident shipping
company with its local office in Calcutta. For its assessment to income-tax for
the years 1952-53 to 1956-57 the appellant filed returns disclosing taxable
income computed on the basis of its annual turn-over in its Indian trade but
did not furnish particulars of its world income. The Income-tax Officer
computed the taxable business income for each year by application of a special
formula which was accepted by the appellant. However, in computing the income,
the Income-tax Officer only allowed normal depreciation and other trade
allowances admissible under the income-tax Act 1922 and did not allow any
initial depreciation or additional depreciation in respect of the ships of the
appellant in any of the assessment years, because the ships acquired by the
appellant were not introduced into the Indian business in the years in which
they were newly acquired. The, orders of assessment were confirmed by the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Tribunal held that in respect of all
the four ships, additional depreciation wag 'admissible under section 10(2)
(vi-a) of the Act, as claimed. The High Court, on a reference, answered the
question against the assessee.
HELD : Additional depreciation was not
admissible to the appellant as an allowance in the computation of the taxable
income by the special formula adopted by the Income-tax Officer.
It was common ground that the, appropriate
method for determining the profits was the second method in r. 33. But that
method was never applied; if it was applied in the computation of the world
profits of the assessee, it would have been necessary to allow the various
depreciation allowances. The assessee could not, while accepting determination
of taxable profits in a manner not warranted by the second method under r. 33,
claim that additional depreciation should be allowed. [8 E] The Supreme Court
in the present appeal was exercising an advisory jurisdiction and could not
decide whether the computation of taxable income by the Income tax Officer by
the application of the formula evolved by him was correct.
Additional depreciation is a statutory
allowance in the determination of taxable profit under s. 10 of the Act, and in
the case of a non-resident where, actual income cannot be determined, and resort
is had to r. 33, not when an empirical method is adopted for computation of the
taxable income. [7 H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 1622 to 1626 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
February 11, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 109 of
1960.
2 Sachin Chaudhuri, T. A. Ramachandran and D.
N. Gupta, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
S. T. Desai, S. A. L. Narayan Rao, R. H.
Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent (in all the
appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Netherlands Steam Navigation Company Ltd.hereinafter called "the
assessee"-is a non-resident Company engaged in shipping business. For the
assessment years 1952-53 to 1956-57 the assessee filed its return of income for
the relevant accounting years disclosing taxable income computed on the basis
of its annual turnover in its Indian trade i.e. "round voyages" to
and from Indian Ports. The assessee did not furnish particulars of its world
income.
The Income-tax Officer computed the taxable
business income of the assessee for each year by the application of the
following formula:
Indian trade profits x Indian Port receipts
-------------------Total Port receipts By the expression "Indian trade
profits" in the formula was meant profit earned in "round
voyages" made by the assessee's ships which touched Indian ports.
Operation of the formula may be illustrated by taking a sample computation by
the Income-tax Officer for the year 1953-54 Kr. Kr.
"Total gross earning in Indian Trade
10,024,996 Deduct:-(1) Total experience in Indian Trade 7,705,474 (2)
Depreciation allowance 733,671 8,439,145 Net profit India Trade 1,585,851 Gross
earning from Indian Ports 5,440,042 Proportionate Indian Profits:--5,440,042
-----------* 1,585,851 860,559 100,024,996 (Rs.100=Kr.79.80 Rs.10,78,395"
In computing the profits of the assessee in India in each year the Income-tax
Officer allowed normal depreciation and other trade allowances admissible under
the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, and the relevant rules made thereunder. He,
however, did not allow initial depreciation and additional depreciation in
respect of the ships of the assessee in any of the assessment years, because
the ships acquired by the assessee were not introduced into the Indian business
in the years in which they were newly acquired. 'The orders of 'assessment were
confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
3 In appeal to the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal the assessee claimed Additional depreciation for four ships for which
the following details were furnished:
"(1) S. S. Bintang Brought into use in
1950.Brought into use in the Indian trade in 1951.
Claim for the assessment years 1952-53 to
19-54-55.
(2) S. S. Billiton Brought into use in 1951.
Brought into use in the Indian trade in 1952. Claim for the Assessment years
1953-54 to 1956-57.
(3) S, S. Banka Brought into use in 1953.
Brought into use in the Indian trade in 1954. Claim for the assessment years
1955-56 and 1956-57.
(4) S. S. Bawean Brought into use in 1953.
Brought into use in the Indian trade in 1954. Claim for the assessment years
1955-56 and 1956-57." The assessee and the Commissioner were agreed that
the taxable income of the assessee had to be determined by the application of
the second method in Rule 33 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. The Tribunal
also observed that the Commissioner and the assessee agreed that the formula
adopted by the Income-tax Officer was "the correct method of assessment".
The Commissioner submitted before the
Tribunal that if the Indian business of the assessee be regarded as part of its
world business and not independent of it, the world profits of the assessee
must be computed according to the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922, and additional depreciation may be taken into account in determining the
taxable profits under the Indian Income-tax Act as a fraction of the world
profits. But he maintained that if the Indian trade be regarded as a separate
business and not part of the world trade of the assessee, additional depreciation
could only be allowed under S. 10(2)(vi-a) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
provided ships which are new are introduced into the Indian trade and not
otherwise, In the opinion of the Tribunal, in computing the taxable income of
the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Indian business must be
taken to be part of the assessee's world business, and "depreciation which
the assessee was entitled to, in respect of its world business by the
application of the Indian Income-tax Act would be proportionately available in
respect of its Indian business." The Tribunal observed that under r. 33
"the profits have to be calculated under the terms of the Indian Incometax
Act and this act postulated that on all machinery, plants and such other things
like steamers brought into business after March 31, 1948, additional
depreciation must also be granted". The 4 Tribunal then observed that the
ships brought into the Indian trade were not new in the years of account
relevant to the five years of assessment, but the assessee was still qualified
under S. 10(2) (vi-a) to additional depreciation for a continuous period of
five years, and "the fact in the first of these years the new ships did
not call at the Indian Ports in one assessment year did not disentitle the
assessee to the benefit not only for that year but also for the succeeding four
years". Accordingly the Tribunal held that in respect of all the four
ships of the assessee, additional depreciation was admissible as claimed.
At the instance of the Commissioner of
Income-tax, the following question was referred by the Tribunal to the High
Court of Calcutta for opinion in respect of each of the five years :
"Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case the assessee-Company is entitled to additional depreciation in
respect of the four ships mentioned above?" The High Court answered the
question in the negative Clause (vi-a) was inserted in s. 10(2) of the Indian
Incometax Act, 1922, by s. 11 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States
and Amendment) Act 67 of 1949. The clause as amended by s. 8 of the Indian
Income-tax (Amendment) Act 25 of' 1953 with effect from April 1, 1952, reads as
follows :
"In respect of depreciation of buildings
newly erected, or of machinery or plant being new which has been installed,
after the 31st day of March, 1948, a further sum (which shall be deductible in
determining the written down value) equal to the amount admissible under clause
(vi) (exclusive of the extra allowance for double or multiple shift working of
the machinery or plant and the initial depreciation allowance admissible under
that clause for the first year of erection of the building or the installation
of the machinery or plant) in not more than five successive assessments for the
financial years next following the previous year in which such buildings are
erected and such machinery and plant installed and falling within the period
commencing on the 1st day of April, 1 949, and ending on the 31st day of March,
1959." The assessee is a non-resident Company. It maintains a Branch
Office in Calcutta; but on that account the' Indian business of the assessee
cannot be regarded as business distinct from its world business. It was not so
treated by the Income-tax Officer, or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
In computing profits or gains of business carried on by an assessee, normal
depreciation 5 under, S. 10(2)(vi) and additional depreciation under S.
10(2)(vi-a) are undoubtedly admissible in the
conditions and to the extent allowed under the two clauses.
By S. 4(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the
total income of any previous year of a non-resident includes all income,
profits and gains from whatever source derived which(1) are received or are
deemed to be received in the taxable territories in such year by or on behalf
of such person, and (2) which accrue or arise or are deemed to accrue or arise
to him 'in the taxable territories during such year.
Section 10 of the Act which charges to tax
the profits and gains of business, profession or vocation carried on by an
assessee applies to assessees who are residents, residents but not ordinarily
resident, and non-residents. Profits and gains of business of a non-resident
received or deemed to be received in the taxable territories by or on behalf of
the assessee are taxable under the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 :
profits and-gains of business which accrue or
arise or are deemed to accrue or arise to him in the taxable territories are
also taxable under that Act; but profits and gains which accrue or arise or are
deemed to accrue or arise to a nonresident without the taxable territories are
not taxable under the Act.
Section 4 is one of the pivotal sections in
the scheme of the Income-tax Act. Thereby within the total income of a
non-resident is included income received, arising or accruing, or deemed to be
received, or to have arisen or accrued, -within the taxable territories. The
Act however gives no clear guidance for determining when income may be said to
have arisen or accrued within the taxable territories. But r. 33 framed under
the Act purports to give some direction to the Income-tax Officer for
determining income, profits or gains accruing or arising to a non-resident for
the purpose of assessment to income-tax.
There is no dispute that the profits of the
business taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are a fraction of the
world-profits-and the profits are to be determined under r.
33 of the Income-tax Rules. Rule 33 of the
Income-tax Rules reads as follows :
"In any case in which the Income-tax
officer is of Opinion that the actual amount of the income, profits or gains
accruing or arising to any person residing out of the taxable territories
whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connection in the
taxable territories or-through or from any Property in the taxable territories,
or through or from any asset or, source of income in the taxable territories,
or through or from any 6 money lent at interest and brought into the taxable
territories in cash or in kind cannot be ascertained, the amount of such
income, profits or gains for the purposes of assessment to income-tax may be
calculated on such percentage, of the turnover so accruing or arising as the
Income-tax Officer may consider to be reasonable, or on an amount which bears
the same proportion to the total profits of the business of such person (such
profits being computed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Income-tax Act) as the receipts so accruing or arising bear to the total
receipts of the business, or in such other manner as the Income-tax Officer may
deem suitable." The rule authorises the Income-tax Officer to adopt one of
the three methods of determining income, profits or gains'?Or the purpose of
assessment to income-tax where the Income-tax Officer is unable to ascertain
the actual amount of income, profits or gains, arising inter-alia out of a
business connection in the taxable territories :-(a) a percentage of turnover considered
reasonable (b) a proportion of the total profits (computed according to the
provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act) of the business of the assessee equal
to the proportion which the receipts accruing or arising bear to the total
receipts of the business and (c) such other manner as the Income-tax Officer
may deem suitable.
The second method, it was common ground, was
properly applicable to the determination of taxable income of the assessee.
That method requires as a first step, determination of the total profits of the
business of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Income-tax Act: the next step is to determine the proportion between the
receipts accruing or arising within the taxable territories and the total
-receipts of the business; and the third step is to determine the income,
profits or gains by the application of the proportion for the purpose of
assessment to income-tax. This method ordains that the fraction which the total
profits bear to the total world receipts is to be applied to the Indian
receipts for determining the taxable profits. The income so determined will be
the taxable income without any further allowances, because the permissible
allowance will all -enter the computation of the world income and income
taxable under the Income-tax Act is also a fraction thereof.
Apparently the Income-tax Officer did not
apply the second method under r. 33 in computing the taxable income of the
assessee, for under that method in determining the taxable income the receipts
accrued or arising in India had to be multiplied by the proportion between the
total profits of the business and the total receipts of the world business.
7 Counsel for the assessee asked us to assume
that the profits computed by the Income-tax Officer according to the formula
adopted by him are profits determined by the second method in r. 33, and
claimed on that footing that beside normal depreciation, additional
depreciation ought also to have been taken into account, and the taxable
profits of the assessee determined on that basis. But that assumption cannot be
made. One of the essential conditions of the applicability of the second method
in r. 33 is the determination of the total world profits of the assessee under
the Indian Income-tax-Act, and reduction of the Indian taxable profits by the
application of the appropriate fraction. The assessee has not produced its
books of account of its world trade to enable the Income-tax Officer to
determine its total taxable profits arising from its world business.
There was apparently no clear appreciation of
the true import of the second method under r. 33 before the Departmental
Authorities and the Tribunal. Counsel for the assessee suggested that his
client may be willing to produce before the Income-tax Officer the books of
account of the relevant years for computing the total world profits according
to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the benefit of additional depreciation
may then be allowed to the assessee in computing the total profits under the
Indian Income-tax Act. Counsel for the Commissioner expressed his willingness
to the adoption of that course. Counsel requested us to adjourn the hearing to
enable them to obtain instructions from their respective clients, and the
hearing was accordingly adjourned for three weeks. But ultimately counsel for
the assessee informed us that his clients may not be able to bring before the
Income-tax Officer the books of account of their world trade.
The Income-tax Officer has evolved a special
formula for determining the profits which is not the second method in r.
33 of' the Income-tax Rules. The assessee has
not challenged the correctness of that method, nor has the Department. In the
application of that formula, normal depreciation and trade expenses are
deducted from the total gross earnings in the Indian trade, but not the
additional depreciation.
Clearly the Income-tax Officer did not in
computing the taxable income resort to the second method in r. 33 of the
Incometax Rules. We are exercising in these appeals advisory jurisdiction, and
are only called upon to answer the question referred by the Tribunal. We are
incompetent to decide whether computation of the taxable income by the
Income-tax Officer by the application of the formula evolved by him is correct:
that question is not before us. We are only concerned to determine the validity
of the claim for admitting additional depreciation in the computation of the
taxable income of the assessee by the method -adopted 8 by the Income-tax
officer. Additional depreciation is a statutory allowance in the determination
of taxable profit under S. 10 of the Act, and in the case of a non-resident
where actual income cannot be determined, and resort is had to r. 33, not when
an empirical method is adopted for computation of the tax-able income.
We are however unable to agree with the
observations of the High Court that "no relief in any shape or form can be
enjoyed by any assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of a source
of income, unless the income from that source is taken into consideration for
the purpose of that Act. In the reference before us the income in question was
outside the purview of assessment under the Indian Income tax Act". That
was not the plea of the Commissioner. The source of the income of the assessee
charged to tax was business: it was not income from any other source. The
Commissioner and the assessee were ad idem on that matter.
The only dispute was whether additional
depreciation was admissible in the computation of the taxable income, when the
taxable business profits were determined by the Income tax Officer by the
method evolved by him.
It was common ground that the appropriate
method for determining the profits was the second method in r. 33. But that
method was never applied: if it was applied in the computation of the world
profits of the assessee, it would have been necessary to allow the various
depreciation allowances. The assessee could not, while accepting determination
of taxable profits in a manner not warranted by the second method under r. 33,
claim that additional depreciation should be allowed. The answer to the
question therefore is that additional depreciation is not admissible as an
allowance in the computation of the taxable income by the special formula
adopted by the Income-tax Officer.
The appeals fail. The assessee will pay the
costs of these appeals. One hearing fee.
R.K.P.S. Appeals dismissed.
Back
