Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 107A

Cases for Section: 107A
Showing 1 to 3 of 3 Records

1992 (10) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Distillers Company (Private) Limited

Business, Business Income

........... their Income Tax Act (8th edition at page 1025), this provision provides for only a chance of getting the meagre relief of having a minimum distribution reduced by 1/5th. In a case where the assessee genuinely requires the entire profits to be set apart and no dividend could be reasonably declared, the Board would be helpless in granting the relief to the assessee. The very purpose of sub-section (2) of section 104 will be defeated in such a situation. It is no answer to the problem to point out that the assessee may approach the Central Government under section 107A of the Act. In the view we have taken as above, it is not necessary for us to consider the first aspect of the contention urged by Sri Ramabhadran that section 107 is not attracted at all in the case of a company which has not declared any dividend. For the reasons stated above, the question referred will have to be necessarily answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. References answered accordingly.

1986 (8) TMI 53 - DELHI High Court

General Talkies Limited Versus Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle-X, New Delhi And Another

Additional Tax, Company, Undistributed Profits, Writ

........... ome-tax Officer and in any case, the Income-tax Officer could ask for any further particulars from the assessee in response to the reply to the show-cause notice wherein basic facts were pleaded. It appears that no oral hearing was given to the assessee and no further records were looked into. The Income-tax Officer does not even seem to have looked into balance-sheet or profit and loss account. No reason has been assigned as to why there was a departure from the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 in which this benefit was granted to the petitioner-company. In the circumstances, there is no reason to hold that the Income-tax Officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case or the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above. For the reasons recorded above, the rule is made absolute and the impugned orders passed by the Board and the Income-tax Officer are hereby quashed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

1983 (5) TMI 69 - ITAT DELHI-B

Meco Pvt. Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

Income Tax, Undistributed Profits

........... IT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 176 has laid down the following dictum ...The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the amount distributed as dividends is judged by business considerations, such as the previous losses, the present profits, the availability of surplus money and the reasonable requirements of the future and similar others. . . . It is, therefore, clear that while considering the aspect based on smallness of profit, expenses for future development should also be taken into account. This view has been further reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in Jananamandal Ltd. s case. Thus, the assessee can legitimately plead that having regard to the admitted future development expenditure which the assessee had to incur, declaration of dividend of more than Rs. 75,000 would be unreasonable. In the above view of the matter, the orders of the authorities below are set aside. The assessee is not liable to pay additional tax. 7. The appeal is allowed.

what is new what is new

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.