The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras
Vs. M. V. Murugappan & Ors  INSC 107 (24 April 1970)
24/04/1970 SHAH, J.C.
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1712 1971 SCR (1) 377 1970
SCC (2) 145
D 1980 SC 478 (8,9)
Income Tax Act 1922, s. 2(6-4) (c)--Company
in liquidation- Distribution of profits earned in year of liquidation to
shareholders if liable to tax as dividend.
The respondents were shareholders of a public
limited company. The Company maintained its accounts according to the Calendar
Year. The company went into liquidation on October 31, 1954. The Liquidators of
the company distributed on March 10, 1955 among the shareholders for each share
of the company a share of another company a I share of equal face value. The
distribution was made out of profits earned by the company between January 1,
1954 and October 31, 1954. The Income-tax officer brought the value of the
shares received by the shareholders to tax on the footing that it represented "accumulated
profits" as contemplated by s. 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1922. 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 distributed the amount in question represented capital in the hands of the
share- holders. This order was confirmed by the Tribunal and upon a reference,
by the High Court. On appeal to this Court,
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) of the Income-tax Act as amended by the Finance Act
The amount distributed by the liquidator on
March 10, 1955, represented the current profits and not profits earned before
January 1, 1954. The amount distributed as dividend out of the current profits
could not, in the state of law in force in the year of assessment 1955-56, be
deemed dividend in the bands of the shareholders. [381 A-B] Birch v. Cropper
(1889) L.R. 14 A.C. 525; Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. George Burral (1924)
2 K.B. 52;
Staffordshire Coal and Iron Co. Ltd. v.
Brogan (Inspector of Taxes) 54 I.T.R. 555; Appavu Chettiar v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Madras 29 I.T.R. 768; Girdhardas & Company Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income-tax Ahmedabad 31 I.T.R. 82; First Income-tax Officer, Salem v. 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 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.
378 K. Srinivasan and R., Gopalakrishnan, for
respondents Nos. 1 to 10.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal submitted the under s. 66(1) of the
Indian Income-tax Act, 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. 1,491,444 were not the part of the accumulated profits of the
Company as on December 31, 1954 as contemplated under s. 2(6A)(c) of the
Income- tax Act of 1922 The High Court answered the question in the
The Commissioner of Income-tax asked for and
obtained a certificate from the High Court only in respect of the amount of Rs.
81,61 1. This appeal is therefore restricted to the claim of the Revenue that
the amount of Rs. 81,611 was not part of the "accumulated profits of the
Company as on October 31, 1954 as contemplated by s. 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax
Act. 1922." Ajax Products Ltd. was a public limited company incorporated
in 1939. It maintained its accounts according to the calendar year. The
respondents to this appeal were share- holders 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 Carborurndum Universal Ltd. of the same face
value. Between January 1, 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. 98,093 as tax, leaving a balance 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 Commissioner
held that under relay as it then stood, the amount of Rs. 81,611 was not
accumulated profits and when distributed it was capital in the hands of, the
shareholders. This order was confirmed by the Tribunal.
The High Court agreed with the view 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 as dividend, 379
Under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, no dividend could be paid otherwise than
out of 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 in the course of winding
up is of the nature of capital and not of dividend, and it cannot be
apportioned into capital and accumulated profits.
In Birch v. Cropper(1), Lord Macnaghten
observed "I think it rather leads to confusion to speak of the assets
which are the subject of this application as 'surplus assets' as if they were
an accretion or addition to the capital of the company capable 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 joint 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 judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. George
Burrell,(2) where Pollock, M. R. observed "....... it is a
misapprehension, after the liquidator has assumed his duties to continue the
distinction between surplus profits and capital." This decision was
recently affirmed by the House of Lords in Staffordshire Coal and Iron Co. Ltd.
v. Brogan (Inspector, of Taxes) (3). 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
Accordingly, the receipt by a constituent
company of its appropriate proportions of the distributed surplus was a receipt
of a capital nature. Lord Evershed observed at p. 5-65 "It cannot now be
in doubt that surplus assets in the hands of the liquidator of a limited
liability company whether limited by share capital or by guarantee-are in his
hands capital. Such a conclusion was laid down by the Court of Appeal in Inland
Revenue Commissioners v. Burrel-(1924)2 K.B. 52 (see especialy per Atkin L.J.),
and it has never since been questioned." (1) (1899) L.R. 14 A.C. 525. (3)
54 I.T.R. 555.
(2) (1924) 2 K.B. 52.
380 The Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when
originally enacted, contained no definition of "dividend" : the expression
"dividend" had therefore the same meaning as it had in the Indian
Companies Act, 1913, and the amount distributed among the shareholders by the
liquidator out of the assets of the company after meeting the liabilities was
regarded as a capital' receipt in the hands of the shareholders. In 1939 the
Indian Legislature incorporated by s. 2 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment)
Act 7 of 1939, an inclusive definition of the express "dividend".
Clause (c) of that definition read :
"any distribution made to the
shareholders of a company out of accumulated profits of the company on the
liquidation of the company:
Provided that only the accumulated profits so
distributed which arose during the 1 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 were not part of the dividend : Appavu Chettiar v. Commissioner
of Income-tax, Madras;(1) Girdhardas & Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Ahmadabad;(2) and also the observations of this Court in First
Income-tax Officer,- Salem x. Short Brothers (P) Ltd.(6) at pp 88 & 89.
Clause (c) to s. 2(6A) was amended by the
Finance Act of 1955 and the proviso to ci. (c) was deleted. The only effect 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
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, to the extent to which the
distribution is attributable to the accumulated profits of the company
immediately before its liquidation, whether capitalised or not;" This
amendment came into operation as from April 1, 1956.
We are in this case concerned with the
distribution of Rs. 100 by allotment of a share in the Carborundum Universal
Ltd. made (1) 29 I.T.R. 768. (3) 60 I.T.R. 83 (2) 31 I.T. R. 82.
381 on March 10, 1955. The question whether the distribution was dividend had to be determined in the light of the
Income-tax Act as amended by the Finance Act of 1956. The amount of Rs. 81,611
distributed by the liquidator on March 10, 1955, represented by the current profits and not profits earned before January 1, 1954. The amount distributed as dividend out of the current profits could not, in the state of the law in
force in the year of assessment 1955-56, be deemed dividend in the hands of the
The appeal therefore falls and is dismissed
R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.