Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Section 18 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Kishanchand Lunidasingh Bajaj vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore on 10 February, 1966
Mr. Sen contended that the above two decisions cannot be
considered to have laid down the law correctly in view of
the decision of this Court in Kishanchand Lunidasing Bajaj
v. Commissioner of Income tax Bangalore, (60 I.T.R. p. 500).
Therein the question was whether a H.U.F. could be charged
to tax in respect of dividends received by some of the
coparceners of that family in respect of shares held by
them, those shares having been purchased from out of the
family funds. This court ruled that the dividends paid to
the shareholder was the income of the family and that being
so, the same was assessable in the hands of the Hindu
undivided family. We see no conflict between this decision
and the decisions earlier referred to. In the Case of
actual receipt of dividends there is a receipt of income.
That income is received on behalf of the family. Hence, the
same was assessable in the hands of the family. In the case
of deemed dividends under section 2(6A)(e) the family does
not get any income at all. The dividend referred to by that
provision is only a deemed dividend and not a real dividend.
Hence, no
1083
income, is either received by the family or accrued to it.
Therefore, the only person who is deemed to have received
that income can be assessed in respect of that income.
Coming to. the facts of the present case the loans advanced
to shareholders alone can be deemed as dividends. No loans
had been advanced to shareholders as seen earlier. Hence,
the shareholders did not get any income. Hence section
2(6A) (e) became inapplicable.
1