Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether non-application of the additional income-tax provision in the Finance Act, 1968, constituted a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether excess dividend declared by the company attracted clause I(B) of Paragraph F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1968; (iii) Whether additional income-tax was payable where the dividend was declared out of profits exempt under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether non-application of the additional income-tax provision in the Finance Act, 1968, constituted a mistake apparent from the record capable of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The omission to apply the Finance Act, 1968, to admitted and undisputed facts was treated as an obvious and patent error. The figures, the excess dividend, and the tax consequence were not in dispute, and the correction did not require any long-drawn process of reasoning.
Conclusion: Yes. The omission was a mistake apparent from the record and was rightly rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (ii): Whether excess dividend declared by the company attracted clause I(B) of Paragraph F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1968.
Analysis: Clause I(B) levies additional income-tax on a portion of the total income of the company, quantified with reference to the relevant excess dividend. On the admitted facts, the dividend exceeded ten per cent of the paid-up equity share capital, and the excess amount determined the quantum of income on which the levy operated.
Conclusion: Yes. The excess dividend attracted clause I(B) of Paragraph F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1968.
Issue (iii): Whether additional income-tax was payable where the dividend was declared out of profits exempt under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The levy under the Finance Act, 1968, was on a part of the company's total income, not on the dividend itself. Amounts exempted for the purpose of normal tax computation still formed part of total income, and the exemption under section 80J did not take the receipts outside the concept of total income for this levy.
Conclusion: Yes. Additional income-tax remained payable notwithstanding that the dividend was declared out of profits exempt under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue on all substantive questions, and the levy and rectification were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory levy is imposed on a specified portion of total income, determined by reference to excess dividend, an exemption affecting normal tax computation does not remove that income from total income for the purpose of the special levy, and an undisputed omission to apply that levy is rectifiable under section 154.