Case: Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai Vs. Raymond Limited

Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)This appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13 February 2009 relates to AY 1997-98. Two questions of law have been framed by the Revenue which are as follows:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the adjustment made by the AO relating to Redemption of Debentures Reserve amounting to Rs.18.80 crores;(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance in respect of capital expenditure incurred in respect of Steel Division at Nashik as revenue expenditure2. Re question (a): Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides in sub-section (2) that every assessee, being a company shall for the purpose of the section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. The explanation to the Section provides that for the purpose of the section, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2) as increased inter alia by "(b) the amounts carried to any reserves by whatever name called". Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 provides inter alia in Clause 7(1)(b) that, "the expression "reserve" shall not include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability".3. The nature of a Debenture Redemption Reserve (DRR) has been considered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 227 ITR 764. The Supreme Court after adverting to the provisions of Clause 7 of Part III to Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 held that "the basic principle is that an amount set apart to meet a known liability cannot be regarded as reserve". Where a company issues debentures, the liability to repay arises the moment the money is borrowed. By issuing debentures a company takes a loan against the security of its assets. Though the loan may not be repayable in the year of account, the obligation to repay is a present obligation. Hence any money set apart in the accounts of the company to redeem the debenture has to be treated as monies set apart to meet a known liability. Consequently, debentures have to be shown in the balance sheet of a company as a liability. Being monies set apart to meet a known liability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559 , in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations of the Supreme Court are of significance:"The debentures were nothing but secured loans. Merely because the debentures were not redeemable during the accounting period, the liability to redeem the debentures did not cease to exist. It was redeemable or repayable at a future date. But it was a known liability. In the form of balance-sheet prescribed by the Act in Schedule VI, the secured loans have to be shown under the heading "liabilities". Secured loans include (1) debentures, (2) loans and advances from banks, (3) loans and advances from subsidiaries, and (4) other loans and advances. The secured loans might not be immediately repayable, but the liability to repay these loans is an existing liability and has to be shown in the companys balance-sheet for the relevant year of account as a liability. Amounts set apart to pay these loans cannot be "reserve". The interpretation clause of the balance-sheet in Schedule VI of the Companies Act specifically lays down that reserves shall not include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for a known liability."4. The mere fact that a Debenture Redemption Reserve is labeled as a reserve will not render it as a reserve in the true sense or meaning of that concept. An amount which is retained by way of providing for a known liability is not a reserve. Consequently the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount which was set apart as a Debenture Redemption Reserve is not a reserve within the meaning of Explanation (b) to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law would, therefore, arise.5. Re question (b): As regards question (b) the Tribunal has relied upon its order in the case of the assessee for Assessment year 1996-97 which in turn relies upon an order for AY 1990-91. That order in turn relied upon the order of the Tribunal for Assessment year 1985-86 which had been confirmed by this Court, treating pre-operative expenses as revenue expenditure. The order passed by the Assessing Officer notes in paragraph 9.1 that the pre-operative expenses related to the following items viz. salary and wages, staff welfare expenses, power, travelling, legal and professional fees and miscellaneous expenses. Evidently these are of a revenue nature. For all these reasons question (b) will not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Decision:
0[ds]4. The mere fact that a Debenture Redemption Reserve is labeled as a reserve will not render it as a reserve in the true sense or meaning of that concept. An amount which is retained by way of providing for a known liability is not a reserve. Consequently the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount which was set apart as a Debenture Redemption Reserve is not a reserve within the meaning of Explanation (b) to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law would, therefore, arise.5. Re question (b): As regards question (b) the Tribunal has relied upon its order in the case of the assessee for Assessment yearwhich in turn relies upon an order for AYThat order in turn relied upon the order of the Tribunal for Assessment yearwhich had been confirmed by this Court, treatingexpenses as revenue expenditure. The order passed by the Assessing Officer notes in paragraph 9.1 that theexpenses related to the following items viz. salary and wages, staff welfare expenses, power, travelling, legal and professional fees and miscellaneous expenses. Evidently these are of a revenue nature. For all these reasons question (b) will not give rise to any substantial question of law.