Case Law Details

Case Name : Dynamic Orthopedics Vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1007)

The assessee, a private limited company, provided for depreciation in its Profit & loss account by adopting the rates specified in the Income Tax Rules and computed its “book profits” u/s 115J on that basis. The AO recomputed the book profits by adopting the depreciation rates as per Schedule XIV to the Companies Act as those were lower than the income-tax rates.

The CIT (A) & Tribunal upheld the stand of the assessee on the ground that Schedule XIV was not applicable to a private limited company though the High Court took the view that s. 205 of the Companies Act stood incorporated into s. 115J and consequently depreciation had to be provided at the rates specified in Schedule XIV and not in terms of the Income-tax Rules. On appeal by the assessee, HELD doubting its own judgement in Malayala Manorama 300 ITR 251:

(i) The law laid down in Malayala Manorama 300 ITR 251 {that (i) Schedule VI does not create any obligation to provide for any depreciation much less for depreciation at Schedule XIV rates, (ii) As per the Company Law Board Circular the rates in Schedule XIV are the minimum rates and a company can provide for higher rates and (iii) Schedule XIV itself contemplates that depreciation can be provided at rates different from the Schedule rates} needs re-consideration because s. 115J by a deeming fiction legislatively only incorporates provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act and not sections 205, 350 or 355. Once a company, whether private or public, falls within the ambit of it being a MAT company, s. 115J applies and is required to prepare its Profit & loss account only in terms of Parts II and III of Schedule VI. By the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, the linkage between depreciation as per Rule 5 and the Companies Act have been expressly de-linked and the rates are also different.

(ii) If the judgement in Malayala Manorama is to be accepted, the very purpose of enacting s. 115J would stand defeated particularly when the said section does not make any distinction between public and private limited companies.

(iii) Accordingly, the matter needs re-consideration by a larger Bench of the Court.

Note: In Malayala Manorama, all that was said was that a company was entitled to provide for depreciation at the income tax rates because the rates specified in Schedule XIV were the minimum rates. It was emphasised that Schedule XIV itself permitted different & higher rates to be provided. Further, the Bench followed Apollo Tyres 255 ITR 273 (3 Judges) where it was laid that the AO could not recompute “book profits” by excluding provisions made for arrears of depreciation.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28069)
Type : Judiciary (12316)
Tags : Book Profit (62) mat (127) supreme court judgements (1258)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *