9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-81, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that additional tax under section 104 should be levied because the petitioner-company had not distributed the requisite dividend. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee that the dividend was not distributed with a view to build up sufficient reserve for further developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith no success. An application under section 256(1) was filed seeking reference of the following questions to this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of tax on undistributed dividend of Rs. 59,008 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion raised was that because of business exigencies, namely, future expansion of the business, the board of directors considered that it should not distribute dividend and that is a good ground for not passing an order under section 104. There can be no dispute with the legal propositions but a question arises whether, in the instant case, there was any expansion programme of the assessee-company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has noted, the Commissioner of Income-tax took into consideration the fact that the capital of the petitioner was only Rs. 3,000 , and apart from one interpolated minutes book, there was no other document on the record at that point of time which would indicate that expansion was envisaged. The conclusion of the tax authorities is based on appreciation of evidence and, in our opinion, no ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
