Commercial test for deemed dividend under section 23A turns on prudent director judgment and anticipated liabilities.

Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only where, on commercial principles, a prudent director could reasonably have declared a larger dividend after considering all surrounding circumstances, including anticipated liabilities and the smallness of profits. The Calcutta High Court treated the revaluation of property, the provision for corporation tax, and the assessment of profits in the relevant years as material to that commercial judgment. On those facts, the Tribunal's view that the provision for anticipated municipal tax liability was justified in commercial accounting terms was accepted, and the order directing distribution of a larger dividend under section 23A was cancelled.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a larger dividend than that declared by the assessee-company could reasonably have been distributed so as to attract section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The assessment turned on the commercial profits available for distribution, the effect of the sudden revaluation of the assessee's property and the resulting provision for corporation tax, and the smallness of the profits in the earlier year. The Tribunal found that the provision against the anticipated municipal tax liability was justified in commercial accounting terms and that the profits for the relevant years were not large. In considering whether a larger dividend ought reasonably to have been declared, the governing test was the commercial point of view of a prudent director and the relevance of all surrounding circumstances, including contingent or future liabilities. On those facts, the order under section 23A(1) could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The application of section 23A was not according to law, and the order directing distribution of a larger dividend was rightly cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether section 23A applies, the question is whether, judged by commercial considerations and the conduct of a prudent director, the larger dividend could reasonably have been distributed after taking into account relevant anticipated liabilities and the smallness of profits.

---