# UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LIMITED & ANR

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 894
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-12-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 969-972 of 1975
- **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-others-v-coromandel-fertilizers-limited-anr-6574
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Income Tax A.ct ( 43 of 1961), ss. 80J and SOK-Scope of-No deductio11
from Compan;y's income under s. SOJ because Company had 110 taxable income
-If Company entitled not to deduct tax at source from the dividend income of
~
share-holder.
Section 80A(2), Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the aggi;egate amount
?--
of deductions under Chapter VIA shall not exceed the gross total mcome of t_he
assessee.
Under s. SOJ(l), which is in Chapter VIA, where the gross total m-
'
come of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial
undertaking, there shall be allowed, in computing the total income of the
assessee, a deduction of so much of the profits and gai113 a~ does not eXCeed
the amount calculated at 6 per cent per annum of the capital employed in the
industrial undertaking, calculated in the prescribed manner, and referred to as
the 'relevant amount'; and, under s. SOJ (3), where the amount of profits
and
gains derived from the industrial undertaking falls short of the 'relevant amount'
the amount of shortfall, or, where there are no profits and gains, the whole of
the 'relevant amount' shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and
gains of the next assessment year and so on up to the 7th ass~ment year
from the end of the initial assessment year. Section SOK provides that in computing the total income of an assessee, whose gross total income includes any
income by way of dividends, there shall be allowed, a deduction from the dividend-income an amount ectual to such part thereof as is attributable to profits
'}
and gains derived by the company from an industrial undertaking on which no
tax is payable by the company or in respect of which a company is entitled to
a deduction under s. SOJ.
Under 5. 197 (3) if by reason of s. SOK. the whole
or any portion of dividend payable to a share-holder will be deductible in com·
puling the assessee's total income, application may be made to the Income Tax
Officer to determine the amount to be deducted, and, on such determination, no
t,ax shall be deducted at source on such amount.
The 2nd respondent is a share-holder of tl:Je 1st respondent-company which
is an industrial undertaking.
The Company' commencect production i~ 1967
and was assessed to income tax for the first time for the ass~ment year 196970. The assessment order disclosed unabsorbed losses and depreciation.
The
Income Tax Officer determined also the amount under s. SOJ for the assessment
years 1969-70 and 1970-71, but as there were no profits in those assessment
years, the amounts were directed to be carried forward to be set off against profits and gains in the succeeding years under s. SOJ(3). For the assessment vear
1973-74, the Company made a profit, but as the total of the unabsorbed ·less
and depreciation exceeded th!! C~mpany's income, the total income for
that '•.1
year of. the Company was nil with some unabsorbed loss and depreciation to
b~ earned forwar~ to the next assessm~nt year 1974-75, that is, the Company
did not have any mcome assessable. to mcome tax in the assessment year 19737 4 and, hence, there was no deduct10n under s. 80J (1) for that year also.
Out of the profits for that ¥~r, the Company declared a dividend.
The
Company thereafter sought perm1S'31on of the Income Tax Officer not to dedoct
tax . at source out of the divi~e!!d payable to shareholders, and also sought a
cerh~cate under s., 19~ (3) pointing out that the dividend payable by it would
qualify for deducl!on m the hands of the
shareholders
under s SOK
The
J!1come Tax Officer rejected the request of the Company, and the wrii peti-
!Ion of the Company was allowed by the High Cou.rt.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the Revenue
relyin
u on
Commissione,r of ln#Jme Tax, Madras v. S. S. Pi/lay (1970) '77 I.Tl. :f54,
..
I'·
UNION v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZE!tS (Qo~~mi, J.)
895
that unless there is an actual deduction under s. 80J, the shareholder was not
.entitled to claim the benefit under s. 80K.
Dismissi

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
894
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
v.
COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LIMITED & ANR.
December 9, 1975
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Income Tax A.ct ( 43 of 1961), ss. 80J and SOK-Scope of-No deductio11
from Compan;y's income under s. SOJ because Company had 110 taxable income
-If Company entitled not to deduct tax at source from the dividend income of
~
share-holder.
Section 80A(2), Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the aggi;egate amount
?--
of deductions under Chapter VIA shall not exceed the gross total mcome of t_he
assessee.
Under s. SOJ(l), which is in Chapter VIA, where the gross total m-
'
come of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial
undertaking, there shall be allowed, in computing the total income of the
assessee, a deduction of so much of the profits and gai113 a~ does not eXCeed
the amount calculated at 6 per cent per annum of the capital employed in the
industrial undertaking, calculated in the prescribed manner, and referred to as
the 'relevant amount'; and, under s. SOJ (3), where the amount of profits
and
gains derived from the industrial undertaking falls short of the 'relevant amount'
the amount of shortfall, or, where there are no profits and gains, the whole of
the 'relevant amount' shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and
gains of the next assessment year and so on up to the 7th ass~ment year
from the end of the initial assessment year. Section SOK provides that in computing the total income of an assessee, whose gross total income includes any
income by way of dividends, there shall be allowed, a deduction from the dividend-income an amount ectual to such part thereof as is attributable to profits
'}
and gains derived by the company from an industrial undertaking on which no
tax is payable by the company or in respect of which a company is entitled to
a deduction under s. SOJ.
Under 5. 197 (3) if by reason of s. SOK. the whole
or any portion of dividend payable to a share-holder will be deductible in com·
puling the assessee's total income, application may be made to the Income Tax
Officer to determine the amount to be deducted, and, on such determination, no
t,ax shall be deducted at source on such amount.
The 2nd respondent is a share-holder of tl:Je 1st respondent-company which
is an industrial undertaking.
The Company' commencect production i~ 1967
and was assessed to income tax for the first time for the ass~ment year 196970. The assessment order disclosed unabsorbed losses and depreciation.
The
Income Tax Officer determined also the amount under s. SOJ for the assessment
years 1969-70 and 1970-71, but as there were no profits in those assessment
years, the amounts were directed to be carried forward to be set off against profits and gains in the succeeding years under s. SOJ(3). For the assessment vear
1973-74, the Company made a profit, but as the total of the unabsorbed ·less
and depreciation exceeded th!! C~mpany's income, the total income for
that '•.1
year of. the Company was nil with some unabsorbed loss and depreciation to
b~ earned forwar~ to the next assessm~nt year 1974-75, that is, the Company
did not have any mcome assessable. to mcome tax in the assessment year 19737 4 and, hence, there was no deduct10n under s. 80J (1) for that year also.
Out of the profits for that ¥~r, the Company declared a dividend.
The
Company thereafter sought perm1S'31on of the Income Tax Officer not to dedoct
tax . at source out of the divi~e!!d payable to shareholders, and also sought a
cerh~cate under s., 19~ (3) pointing out that the dividend payable by it would
qualify for deducl!on m the hands of the
shareholders
under s SOK
The
J!1come Tax Officer rejected the request of the Company, and the wrii peti-
!Ion of the Company was allowed by the High Cou.rt.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the Revenue
relyin
u on
Commissione,r of ln#Jme Tax, Madras v. S. S. Pi/lay (1970) '77 I.Tl. :f54,
..
I'·
UNION v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZE!tS (Qo~~mi, J.)
895
that unless there is an actual deduction under s. 80J, the shareholder was not
.entitled to claim the benefit under s. 80K.
Dismissing the appeal,
.i.r
HELD : As against actual deduction the Company's entitlement to deduction
·under s. SOJ in the relevant year is enough to give a right to ~e shareholder to
invoke s. SOK and obtain, p.ari pas~u, the benefit of the section. The. _Com·
pany is, therefore, not required to deduct at source the tax from the d!Vld~nds
which they were declaring to the shareholders and the Company was enlitled
.. to the appropriate certificate under s. 197(3).
[901-D-EJ
The case relied upon by the ·Revenue dealt with s. 15C of the 1922 Act and
,.. does not assist the Revenue, because there are· the following differences between
s 15C of the 1922 Act and ss. 80J and SOK of the 1961 Act : [900B]
'
(a) Under s. 15C, the.re was no question of carrying forward from one
A
B
accounting year to the succeeding year or years sums allowable under this section.
That feature of carrying forward is now prominent in s. 80J (3). [900CD]
C
(b) If an industrial undertaking has no taxable profits, it cannot
claim
-exemption from tax under s. 15C( I); and if the undertaking cannot claim the
benefit, a shareholder will not get the benefit under s. 15C( 4); that is, under
8. 15C the shareholder was entitled to relief only when the company was able
to get an actual deduction.
The company and the shareholder were at par.
Section SOK, however, shows that there is no legal requirement of a de facto
'.deduction in the particular assessment year. It is- sufficient if the company is
D
entitled to a deduction. [900G-H, 901B]
(c) If actual deduction is required under s. SOK also, an anomally would
.arise, namely,-the company, when it becomes entitled to a deduction under
s. 80J (1) gets it either in that year or by set off in subsequent years under
s. 80J(3); but the shareholder will be barred from getting any relief when the
dividend is declared in a year in which the company, because of s. 80A(2), is
not able to get an actual deduction. The Legislature has avoided this anomally
'by using the expression "the company is entitled to a deduction" in s. SOK and
maintained parity between the company and the shareholder.
[901-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 969-972 of
1975.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
l8th September, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ peti-
' tion Nos. 2279-80 of 1973 and 4305 of 1974_
B .. Sen, Mjs. B. B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar for the appellants.
Ml s. F. N. Kaka, S. N. Talwar, J. B. Ahuja and Shri Narain for
the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J.
An important question of law as to the interpretation
of section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) is raised
in these four appeals by special leave.
M/s Coromandel Fertilisers Limited (First Respondent) is a registered company incorporated on October 16, 1961, under the Companies Act and the 2nd Respondent is one of its shareholders holding
two hundred equity shares in the paid-up capital of the company out
of a total number of 95,82,010 equity shares issued by it. The company was engaged in manufacture of fertilisers at its factory at Vishalchapatnam and it commenced production in December 1967.
E
F
G
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 2 S.C.R.
A
There is no dispute that the company as such fulfilled the appropriate conditions laid down under sub-section 4 of section 80J ot the
Act to qualify for deduction in respect of profits upto an extent of six
per cent per annum on the cap.ital employed in respect of profit for
the purpose of computation of tax.
The company was assessed to income-tax as an industrial unc!erB
taking for the first time for the assessment year 1969-70. The orders
c
D
E
F
G
H
of assessment were passed on 23-11-1972 and 4-1-1973.
The said
~
orders disclosed a sum of Rs. 11,10,176/- being carried forward as
unabsorbed losses to the succeeding year and a sum of Rs.
,'-
9, 73,93,861/- being carried forward as unabsorbed depreciation to the
subsequent year.
~
The capital employed by the company in its new industrial undertaking was Rs. 48,87,38,018/- and 6% thereof under section 80J(l)
amounted to Rs. 2,93,24,281/-. Out of this amount, the amount relating to the ten months of the year confined to the period during
which the industrial undertaking was in operation was determined by
the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 2,44,36,901/-. As no profit was made
in the assessment year 1969-70 the aforesaid "deficiency" within the
meaning of section 80J(3) was carried forward to the succeeding year
1970-71. Similarly for the next assessment year 1971-72 it was recorded in the assessment order that the company was entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,58,31,806/- under section 80J. As there were no profits
to be absorbed, the said amount has been carried forward under section 80J(3) to the succeeding assessment year 1971-72. The returns
filed for the assessment year 1971-72 by the company have not been
finalised. But all the same the company, as per its books, had made a
profit of Rs. 4.55 crores approximately in the accounting year 1972
corresponding to the assessment year 1973-74. It does not appear to
be disputed that for the assessment year 1973-74, the company's income after deducting depreciation for that year would come 'to Rs.
6.16 crores. This amount would be subject to set off against unabsorbed depreciation and business losses which would exceed the said
Rs. 6.16 crores resulting in nil total income with some unabsorbed deY
preciation and business loss to be carried forward to the next assessment year 1974-75. It is not disputed that after setting off the
brought-forward allowances the company will not be assessable to any 'f
income-tax upto the assessment year 1973-74.
·
The company made business profit of Rs. 4.55 crores in the year
1972. The Board of Directors at their meeting held on March 14,
1973, recommended declaration of a maiden dividend of Rs.
76,65,~08/- out of the profits of that year. The company represented
to the Income-tax Officer on March 3,
1973, seeking a certificate
under section 197(3) of the Act pointing out that the dividend payable by it would qualify for deduction in the hands of the shareholders
under section SOK of the Act.
The company sought permission of
the Income-tax Officer not to deduct tax at source out of the dividend
payable to the shareholders. The request of the company was rejected
by the Income-tax Officer holding that the shareholders were not
entitled to the benefit of section SOK of the Act. On coming to know
"I
J
/
UNION v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS (Goswami, !.)
89 7
about the declaration of the dividend by the company, even the ResA
pondent-sbareholders had also requested the company to obtain the
necessary certificate. The refusal of their request led to the institution
of writ applications by the respondents before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
According to the High Court the shareholders are entitled to claim
deduction under section· SOK of the Act and the company was entitled
B .
to an order of the Income-tax Officer under section 197 ( 3) for issuing
... ,
a certificate enabling it not to deduct tax .out of the dividend payable
to the shareholders.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that questi0n
raised
is governed by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncometax. Madras vs. G. S. Sivan Pillai and Others(i1). In that case this
C
Court was required to consider the provisions of section 15C of the
Income-tax Act, 1922 (briefly the Old Act) which was largely different from the present sections with which we are concerned in these
appeals. The assessment years that came up for consideratkn in that
decision were 1954-55 and 1955-56.
It may be appropriate to set out section 15C :
"15C. Exemption from tax of newly established Industrial Undertakings :
( 1) Save as otherwise herein provided, the tax shall not
be payable by an assessee on so much of the profits
or gains derived from any industriaJ undertaking (or
hotel) ·to which this section applies as do not exceed
six percent, per annum on the capital employed in
the undertaking (or hotel), computed in accordance
with such rules as may be made in this behalf by the
Central Board of Revenue.
x
x
x
x
( 4) The tax shall not be payable by a shareholder in
respect of so such of any dividend paid or deemed to
be riaid to him by an industrial undertaking (or a
hotel) , as is attributable to that part of the profits or
gains on which the tax is not payable under the
section.
·
Explanation :-The amount of dividend in respect of
which the tax is not payable under this sub-section shall be
computed in accordance with such rules as may be made in
this behalf by the Central Board of Revenue".
While dealing with the above section this Court observed in the
Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.S. Siven Pillai (supra) as under:-
D
E
F
G
"Exemption under section 15C(l) from payment of inH
come-tax is not related to the business profits; it is related
(!) (1970) 77 ITR 364, 357, 359.
A
·B
c
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
to the taxable profits.
The language of sub-section (3) is
clear; the profits or gains of an industrial undertaking have
to be determined under section 10 of the Act. Even if the
undertaking has earned profits out of its commercial activity,
if it has no taxable profits it cannot claim exemption from
payment of tax under sub-section ( 1) of section 1 SC; and
if the undertaking cannot claim the benefit under sub-section
(1) the shareholders will not get the benefit of sub-sectiou
( 4), for there is no dividend paid which is attributable to
that part of the profits or gains on which the tax was not payable by the undertaking.
..
The company had no taxable profit in the year of account; it did not accordingly qualify for exemption from payment of tax under sub-section ( 1), and since there was no
such taxable profit, the dividend received by the shareholders
could not be said to be attributable to that part of the profits or gains on which the tax was not payable under subsection (1). On the plain terms of section lSC the shareholders cannot obtain the benefit of exemption from payment
of tax".
"The right of the shareholders to obtain the benefit of
exemption under section 15C(4) depends upon the company
obtaining the benefit of exemption under sub-section ( 1) of
section lSC, for the exemption from payment of tax on the
dividend received by the shareholders is admissible only on
that part of the profits or gains on which the tax is not payable by the company under sub-section (1)".
As will be shown later this decision will not be of aid to the appellants in view of the changes in the law.
With a view to offer incentive to investment, section l~C of the
Old Act was dealing with the principle of truce with tax for a limited
period of what is described as tax holiday benefit with which we are
concerned. The Finance (No. 2) Act of 1967 substituted the earlier
provisions in that behalf in Chapter VI-A in the Income-tax Act 1961
with.effect from April 1, 1968. We will, therefore, read the provisions
of the material sections in this Chapter,.namely, sub-sections ( 1) and
(3) of section 80J and section SOK :
"80J (1). Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any ·profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel, to which this
section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to
the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the
total income of the assessee. a deduction from such profits
and gains (reduced by the aggregate of the deductions,
if
any. admissible to the assessee under section 80H and section 80-I) of so much of the amount thereof as does not
exceed the amount calculated at the rate of six per cent. per
annum on the capital employed in the industrial undertaking
•r
•
;
UNION v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS (Goswami, J.)
or ship or business of the hotel, as the case may be, computed in the prescribed manner in respect of the previous
year relevant to the assessment year (the amount calculated
as aforesaid being hereafter, in this section, referred to as the
relevant amount of capital employed during the previous
year).
899
(3) where the amount of the profits and gains derived
from the industrial undertakings or ship or business of the
hotel, as the case may be, included in the total income as
computed without applying the provisions of section 64 and
before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or section
280(0) in respect of the previous year relevant to an assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1967
(not being an assessment year prior to the initial assessment
year or subsequent to the fourth assessment year as reckoned
from the end of the initial assessm~t year) fails short of the
relevant amount of capital employed during the previous
year, the amount of such shortfall, or, where tbere are no
such profits and gains, an amount equal to the relevant
amount of capital employed during the previous year (such
umount, in either case, being hereafter, in this section, referred to as definition) shall be carried forward and set off
against the profits and gains referred to in sub-section ( 1)
(as computed after allowing the deductions, if any, admissible under section 80H, section 80-I and the said sub-section ( 1) ) in respect of the previous year relevant to the
next following assessment year and, if there are no such profits and gains for that assessment year, or where the deficiency exceeds such profit:S'·and gains, the whole or balance
of the deficiency as the case may be. shall be set off against
such profits and• gains for the next following assessment year
and if ~nd so far as such ~eficiency cannot be wholly so
set off, it shall be set off agamst such profits and gains assessable for the next following assessment year and so on :
Provided that-
(i) in no case shall the deficiency or any part thereof be
carried forward beyond the seventh assessment year
as reckoned from the end of the initial assessment
year;
(ii) where there is more than one deficiency and each
such defi~iency re~ates to a different assessment year,
the deficiency which relates to an earlier assessment
year shati be set off under this sub-section before
setting off the deficiency in relation to a later assessment year:
Provi<;Ied fur!her that in t~e. case of an assessee being a
co-operative society, the provisions of this sub-section shall
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
A
have effect as if for the words "fourth assessment year",
the words 'sixth assessment year' had been suostituted''.
B
c
"SOK. Where the gross total income of an assessee, being
the owner of any share or shares in a company,
include&
any income by way of dividends paid or deemed to have been
paid by the company in respect of such share or shares,
there shall. subject to any rules that may be made by the
Board in this behalf, be allowed, in computing his total income, a deduction from such income by way of dividends
of an amount equal to such part thereof as is attributable to
the profits and gains derived by the company from an indus~
trial undertaking or ship or the business of a hotel, on which
no tax is payable by the company under this Act for any
assessment year commencing prior to the 1st day of April,
196S, or in respect of which the company is entitled to a
deduction under section SOJ".
A perusal of sections SOJ(3) and 15C would clearly show the
difference in the scheme of the two provisions.
Broadly speaking,
there was no question of "carry forward" from one accounting year
D
to the succeeding year or years the sums allowable under section 15C.
E
F
G
That feature is now prominent in section SOJ in clearly providing that
"where there are no such profits and gains, an amount equal to the
relevant amount or capital employed during the previous year (viz.,
the six per cent of the capital employed) ...... shall be carried forward and set off against profits and gains referred to in sub-section
(1) ........ ".
There is another vital distinction.
While section 1SC(4) refers
to relief in case of only taxable profits, section SOK provides that in
computing the total income of an assessee whose gross total income
includes any income by way of dividends, there shall be all9wed in
computing his total income a deduction from such income by way of
dividends an amount equal to such part thereof as is attributable to
profits and gains derived by the company from an industrial undertaking on which no tax is payable by the company under the Act or
in resvect of which the company is entitled to deduction under section SOJ (emphasis supplied). The expression "or in respect of which
the company is entitled to a deduction under section SOJ" introduces
a new concept. There is no legal requirement of a de facto deduction
of the amount in question in the particular assessment year.
As
against actual deduction the company's entitlement to deduction
in
the relevant year is enough to answer the requirement of section 80J.
Necessarily. therefore. the dividend-earner will also be entitled to invoke section SOK and obtain pari passu the benefit of the provision.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that unless there is actual
deduction under section 80J, the shareholder is not entitled to claim
H
benefit under section 80K.
The appellants further contend that section SOA(2) of the Act is a complete answer to the claim of the respondents.
By sub-section (2) of section 80A the entire amount of
deduction under Chapter VI-A shall not in any case exceed the gross
1
•
UNION v. COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS (Goswami, J.)
901
total income of the assessee. It was. therefore. submitted that as there
were not assessable incomes of the company· in the particular years,
the question of deduction of the monetary benefit by the shareholder
would not arise.
We are unable to accept this submission. Under
old section 15C, the shareholder was entitled to relief only when the
company was able to get actual deduction. Both were at par. The
parity has been sought to be maintained under the amended provisions
of sections SOJ and SOK between the company and the shareholder.
The company, when becomes entitled to deductions under section
SOJ ( 1), gets it either in that year or by a set off in subsequent years.
If the interpretations which we have put to the new sections were not
to- hold good, the result will be that the shareholder will be debarred
from getting any relief when dividend is declared in a year in which
the company, because of section SOA(2), is not able to get actual deduction. The company will reap the advantage of set off un_der section ·
j80J(3) in subsequent years, while the shareholder for the dividend
declared in the past, will get no relief,
under section SOK.
This
anomaly is avoided, and the legislature intended to avoid it, by use
of the expression "the company is entitled to a deduction" in section
SOK and on the interpretation we have put above.
We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the company was not
required under the law to deduct at source tax from the dividends
which they were declaring to the shareholder. The company was entitled to an appropriate certificate frnm the Income-tax Officer under
section 197 ( 3). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed and the impugned orders are set aside. The company will be entitled to approach
the Income-tax Officers for such appropriate certificates under section
197(3), as may be admissible on proper computation under the relevant rules. There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.
A ,
B
c
D
E