Prudent businessman test governs dividend restraint when share investments lose value under section 23A.

Depreciation in the value of shares held as an investment could be treated as a relevant business factor in deciding whether dividend withholding was unreasonable under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court applied a prudent businessman test, requiring the tax authority to consider prior losses, present profits, available surplus and the reasonable needs of the future from the company's commercial standpoint. It held that a substantial fall in investment value could properly be taken into account even if no cash loss had been realised, because directors need not ignore an actual diminution in asset value and speculate on recovery. The company's refusal to declare dividend was therefore not unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: Whether depreciation in the value of shares held as an investment, though not realised by sale, could be treated as a relevant business factor in determining under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 whether it was unreasonable for the company to withhold dividend.

Analysis: The statutory inquiry under section 23A required the tax authority to judge the matter from the standpoint of a prudent businessman and not merely from the revenue's perspective. In assessing whether the declaration of dividend was unreasonable, business factors such as prior losses, present profits, available surplus, and the reasonable requirements of the future had to be weighed. Applying that approach, the Court held that a substantial fall in the value of shares was a legitimate factor for directors to consider even if the loss had not been realised in cash, because directors are not expected to ignore an actual diminution in investment value and gamble on a possible future recovery. The Court also distinguished the English decision relied upon by the revenue as dealing with a different question of realised loss and not with the test of dividend reasonableness under section 23A.

Conclusion: The depreciation in share value was a relevant consideration, and the company's decision not to declare dividend could not be treated as unreasonable under section 23A. The answer was in favour of the assessee.

---