Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court rules interim distributions for tax purposes must be evaluated separately, not aggregated.

        VH. Sheth And Others Versus Cables And Wireless Limited

        VH. Sheth And Others Versus Cables And Wireless Limited - [1977] 107 ITR 293 Issues Involved:

        1. Validity of the assessment order dated March 30, 1967.
        2. Interpretation of Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        3. Timing of the taxable event for capital gains tax.
        4. Consideration of amounts received in 1949 and 1953 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
        5. Determination of capital gains and the cost of acquisition.
        6. Relevance of interim distributions versus final distribution in liquidation.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated March 30, 1967:

        The Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioners on capital gains for amounts received as distribution of capital upon liquidation of their subsidiary company. The petitioners challenged the assessment order, leading to its quashing by K. K. Desai J. The judgment under appeal upheld the quashing of the assessment order, stating that the amounts received in 1949 and 1953 could not be taxed under the head "Capital gains" as the relevant provisions were not in force at that time.

        2. Interpretation of Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

        The court examined Section 46(2), which stipulates that a shareholder receiving money or assets from a company in liquidation is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" on the date of distribution. The court concluded that this section does not imply that interim distributions should be aggregated and taxed only upon final distribution.

        3. Timing of the Taxable Event for Capital Gains Tax:

        The court rejected the Income-tax Officer's contention that the taxable event occurred only upon the final distribution of Rs. 2,39,934 on September 18, 1961. The court held that each distribution should be considered separately for tax purposes, and amounts received in 1949 and 1953 could not be retroactively taxed under the 1961 Act.

        4. Consideration of Amounts Received in 1949 and 1953 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

        The court noted that the sums of Rs. 53,85,400 and Rs. 25,07,001 received in 1949 and 1953, respectively, were not subject to capital gains tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as there was no provision for such tax at that time. Therefore, these amounts could not be taxed under the 1961 Act.

        5. Determination of Capital Gains and the Cost of Acquisition:

        The Income-tax Officer's assessment included determining the cost of acquisition of shares and calculating capital gains. The court found that the officer's method of aggregating interim distributions and taxing them upon final distribution was not justified. The proper approach would be to tax any excess amount received over the cost of acquisition as capital gains at the time of each distribution.

        6. Relevance of Interim Distributions versus Final Distribution in Liquidation:

        The court emphasized that interim distributions should not be treated as mere instalments leading up to a final taxable event. Each distribution should be evaluated independently for tax purposes. The court held that the Income-tax Officer's approach would result in undue hardship to the revenue and potential tax evasion by shareholders receiving substantial interim distributions before the final distribution.

        Conclusion:

        The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the quashing of the assessment order dated March 30, 1967. It directed the Income-tax Officer to pass a new assessment order considering only the amounts received as deemed dividend and the final distribution received on September 18, 1961. The court also granted liberty to the respondent's attorneys to withdraw the sum deposited towards costs of the appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found