2005 (9) TMI 61 - BOMBAY High Court
Vissanji Sons And Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax.
"Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that only the cumulative preference dividends relating to the previous year amounting to Rs. 65,000 could be deducted in working out the undistributed income, which was liable to additional income-tax u/s 10 ......
1994 (10) TMI 94 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Thakur Devi Investments Private Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Additional Tax, Assessing Officer, Commercial Profit, Undistributed Profits ......
........... the company justifying distribution of any or higher dividend. 13. We have considered the case law applied by the ld. counsel and we find that the plea regarding the amount of profit being at Rs. 3,07,952 is acceptable in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Panama (P.) Ltd. s case because that was the amount which was commercial profit and which was carried to the profit and loss appropriation account. We have already seen that the case of loss is not at all established nor the case of any other requirement of funds like repayment of loans. We have also seen that the investments made by the assessee in land and the advances made in future to M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. do not justify the retention of profit by the assessee. 14. We, therefore, reject the assessee s plea that no tax was leviable under section 104. We hold that the assessee was required in law to distribute its profit by way of dividend, which was not done. 15. In the result, the appeal stands rejected
1993 (4) TMI 47 - GAUHATI High Court
Tarajan Tea Company Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Closely Held Company, Company, Dividends, Income Tax On Undistributed Income ......
........... cles of association gives rise to no enforceable obligation against the company, because the resolution is always capable of being rescinded. Going by the principles laid down above, it cannot be said that dividend was distributed in this case at any time prior to the date of the annual general meeting which took place beyond 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year. It must, therefore, follow that income-tax was leviable on the distributable income as there was no amount of dividend distributed to be reduced. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the decision of the board of directors was only a proposal and the declaration was made by the annual general meeting. The two questions referred are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. There will be no direction as to costs.
1989 (5) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA High Court
Ganesh Properties Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Closely Held Company, Investment Company ......
........... hould be allowed to declare dividend short of the statutory percentage. The question of soundness is an irrelevant question. The real question is the commercial prudence and prudence implies the judgment of practical requirements. If the requirements of the company call for an exercise of prudent restraint, the restraint would be reasonable. Therefore, in this case it has been only reasonable for the company to refrain from declaring a larger dividend than was declared for the reasons grounded on practicality. The declaration of a larger dividend would have left the assessee short of liquidity. We, therefore, answer the question referred under section 66(1) in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the question referred to us under section 66(1), the question referred under section 66(2) need not be answered separately. We, therefore, decline to answer the latter question. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
1982 (5) TMI 121 - ITAT MADRAS-B
V. Ramakrishna Sons Pvt. Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Income Tax, Original Order With Appellate Order ......
........... sentative and set aside the order with a direction to pursue the action which was validly initiated under section 155(7) within time since it is not a case where the action was ab initio bad. Hence, the second order has to be upheld. We are aware that on upholding the second order practically nullifies the assessee s success in respect of the first order, since in the revised calculation in his order on a different distributable income, the ITO has not repeated his mistake. But this is a result which we cannot help. If a mistake gets lawfully rectified, neither the taxpayer nor the revenue can make a grievance of it as no one has a vested right to the fruits of the mistake committed by another. 7. In the result, the appeal in respect of the rectification order dated 3-11-1978 is allowed and the impugned order is cancelled. The appeal in respect of the order dated 10-3-1979 is dismissed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the validity of the order is upheld.