TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies tax rebate rules for interim dividends distribution</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Express News Papers Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Express News Papers Ltd. - [1998] 15 SCL 340 (SC) Issues:1. Interpretation of tax rebate provisions under the Finance Act, 1964 in relation to the declaration and distribution of dividends by a company.2. Determination of whether a resolution by a company's board of directors for interim dividend payment constitutes a declaration of dividend under the Companies Act, 1956.3. Application of Explanation 3 to the Finance Act, 1964 regarding the timing of dividend declaration and distribution for tax rebate purposes.Analysis:In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of tax rebate reduction concerning a public limited company running a newspaper for the assessment year 1964-65. The company's board of directors passed a resolution on 6-12-1962 to distribute interim dividends among shareholders, payable on 16-1-1963, affecting the tax liability. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reduced the rebate available to the company based on this interim dividend payment. The company argued that the rebate should not be reduced as per Explanation 3 of the Finance Act, 1964, which protects dividends declared before the previous year and distributed during that year. The High Court framed the legal question on whether the interim dividend declared in December 1962 but paid in January 1963 could impact the tax rebate under the Finance Act, 1964.The High Court concluded that the rebate should not be reduced as the company declared the dividend before the previous year, and distribution occurred in the subsequent year, invoking Explanation 3. However, the appellant contended that the resolution did not constitute a formal declaration of dividend under the Companies Act, 1956, and the rebate reduction was valid due to the distribution timing. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1964, emphasizing the distinction between 'declaration' and 'distribution' of dividends. It interpreted Explanation 3 to require both declaration and distribution within the same previous year for rebate reduction.The Court highlighted the Companies Act's provisions on dividend declaration by the company in a general meeting and interim dividend payment by the board of directors. It noted that the power to declare dividends lies with the general meeting, while interim dividends can be paid by the board based on profit estimates, as per Table A of the Act. The Court referenced a previous case to distinguish between general meeting-declared dividends and board-declared interim dividends, emphasizing the enforceable obligation arising only from general meeting declarations. It clarified that interim dividends do not create a debt enforceable against the company until payment, allowing the board to rescind the resolution.Ultimately, the Court held that the resolution by the board of directors for interim dividend payment did not equate to a formal declaration of dividend by the company. Therefore, the distribution of dividends in January 1963 triggered the rebate reduction provisions under the Finance Act, 1964. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and answered the legal question in favor of the revenue authorities. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 