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: Whether the proposed dividend, subsequently ratified by the shareholders, had to be treated as a known liability on the first day of the accounting year for the purpose of computing capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that question was perverse.
Analysis: The relevant capital had to be computed with reference to the first day of the previous year under the surtax scheme, and the true nature of the amount depended on the substance of the company's accounts and the manner in which the dividend proposal, reserve transfer, and shareholder ratification were linked. The Tribunal found on the materials that the general reserve was created and the dividend was ultimately paid out of that reserve as part of one integrated transaction, so the later declaration could be related back to the beginning of the accounting year. On that footing, the proposed dividend was not treated as a reserve available for capital computation, and the finding was not shown to be without evidence or perverse.
Conclusion: The answer was in the affirmative on the first part and in the negative on the second, both in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the surrounding facts show that the creation of reserve and the subsequent declaration of dividend are parts of one integrated transaction, the later declaration may relate back to the opening date of the accounting year for surtax capital computation.