Dividend Declaration Date for Tax Assessment: AGM vs. Board Resolution

Tarajan Tea Company Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Tarajan Tea Company Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1993] 204 ITR 218, 119 CTR 289, 77 TAXMANN 220 Issues:
1. Interpretation of the timing of dividend declaration for tax purposes under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the declaration of dividend by the board of directors or the annual general meeting is considered the official declaration for tax assessment.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment year 1977-78 concerning the timing of dividend declaration by a company. The board of directors resolved on December 12, 1977, to declare a dividend for the years 1969 to 1971, which was approved at the annual general meeting on July 22, 1978. The Income-tax Officer contended that the actual declaration occurred in July 1978, beyond the 12-month period from the previous year's end, invoking section 104(1) for tax assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax disagreed, deeming the December 1977 resolution as the declaration. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of when a dividend can be considered distributed for tax purposes under section 104(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT, emphasizing that directors can recommend dividends, but the general body must approve the declaration. The court analyzed the company law regulations on interim dividends and noted that the board's decision in this case was not labeled as interim, but rather a final dividend, approved by the general body. Citing J. Dalmia v. CIT, the court highlighted that a resolution by directors for interim dividend does not create an enforceable obligation until payment, which can be rescinded. Applying these principles, the court concluded that the dividend was officially declared at the annual general meeting in July 1978, not in December 1977 as contended by the assessee.

In light of the above analysis, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the board of directors' resolution was a proposal, and the actual declaration occurred at the annual general meeting. Consequently, the court answered the referred questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The judgment was signed by the Registrar and sealed for transmission to the Appellate Tribunal, with no costs directed.