Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Section 104 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
Ltd.'s case (supra) has not been noticed by the Supreme Court and the said decision has also not been noticed by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.)
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Gungadhar Banerjee And Co. (P) Ltd on 22 March, 1965
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that as the company started under unlucky stars, serious disputes arose between the directors which ended in deadlock. Ultimately a petition for voluntary liquidation was filed in August 1962 and the learned judge of the High Court decided the same in December 1962. It was further submitted that in view of the disputes the accounts could not be prepared and, therefore, the question of declaring the dividends did not arise even when there were profits. It was further submitted that the position crystallised in the year 1978 and at that time the assessee could not put back the hands of the clock. Reliance was placed on the case of CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 176 a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It was further brought to our notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77 cancelled the orders of the ITO under Section 104. This is what he observed while doing so :
The Companies Act, 1956
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 27 September, 1962
It may not be out of place to mention that the Bombay High Court had taken a contrary view, of course in a different set of circumstances, in the case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 206. In that case, the restriction was imposed by law on the company in respect of declaration of dividends at a particular point of time. It was held that Section 23A would not apply in such a case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd on 10 October, 1966
The Bombay High Court decision, it may be stated, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 310. However, the Madras High Court decision in Murlimal Santram & Co. (Madras) (P.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs Bennet Coleman And Co. Ltd. on 21 October, 1983
On the other hand, I find that the view that the losses of the earlier years and the profits for the previous year are not the only requirements upon which the ITO has to judge the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the dividends distributed has been taken by the Bombay High Court in a number of cases, viz.--CIT v. Suleman & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 94 and New Star Industries (P.)