Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd And Anr. on 28 June, 1976

Southern Roadways Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... on 16 December, 1980

70. Further, the Gujarat High Court in the decision in question, namely, CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. [1977] 107 ITR 489 had not given full effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd.'s case [1971] 80 ITR 566. The Supreme Court had held that when the resolution of the general body meeting creating a reserve out of the profits of a company for the concerned year will relate back to the first day of the succeeding year, there is no justification on principle for holding that the resolution of the same general body meeting of the company regarding declaration of dividend will not have such an effect. As we have pointed out already, the fact that the reserve will remain in the coffers of the company and the dividend will go out of the coffers of the company to the shareholders and, consequently, when the company decides to declare a dividend, it undertakes an obligation towards the shareholders, will not in any way affect the position, because the relation back in question either with regard to "reserve" or with regard to declaration of dividend is solely for the purpose of computation of the capital under the Second Schedule to the Act and not for any other purpose.
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 14 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Southern Roadways Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... on 16 December, 1980

60. Further, the Gujarat High Court in the decision in question, namely, CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. [1977] 107 ITR 489 had not given full effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd.'s case [1971] 80 ITR 566. The Supreme Court had held that when the resolution of the general body meeting creating a reserve out of the profits of a company for the concerned year will relate back to the first day of the succeeding year, there is no justification on principle for holding that the resolution of the same general body meeting of the company regarding declaration of dividend will not have such an effect. As we have pointed out already, the fact that the reserve will remain in the coffers of the company and the dividend will go out of the coffers of the company to the shareholders and, consequently, when the company decides to declare a dividend, it undertakes an obligation towards the shareholders, will not in any way affect the position, because the relation back in question either with regard to "reserve" or with regard to declaration of dividend is solely for the purpose of computation of the capital under the Second Schedule to the Act and not for any other purpose.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Orient Paper Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 August, 1977

Mr. Bajoria, however, contended that a contrary view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in a subsequent decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd. [1971] 107 ITR 489 (Guj), where it has been held that amounts set apart on account of proposed dividend should be included in computing the capital of a company for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and should not be treated as a provision. Mr. Bajoria invited us to follow the later decision of the Gujarat High Court and review the earlier judgment of this court. The earlier judgment of this court is binding on us and as such we are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Bajoria.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 November, 1978

In any event, in this connection, he has relied on the following decisions : Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT , CIT v. Aryodaya Ginning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 145 (Bom) and CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd. . So far as the 4th question is concerned, Dr. Pal has submitted that in view of his contentions as stated above, it was not necessary to make any separate submission in respect of the same.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 August, 1980

The Gujarat High Court also had occasion to consider some of these aspects in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd. . But that decision, in so far as it held that the provision for taxation account was not entitled to deduction, may be contrary to the views expressed by this court in the decision which I shall presently note, but we are not concerned with that controversy.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 June, 1978

25. Lastly I will refer to the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 489. That, was a case which arose under the S.P.T. Act. The question was whether amounts transferred to "taxation reserve" and "proposed dividend" were "reserves" and could be included in the computation of the capital of the company. It was held that the amount standing in the proposed dividend account was includible in computing the capital of the income. But the amount standing in the "provision for taxation account" was not so includible.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next