<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (8) TMI 134 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170646</link>
    <description>A liquidation distribution treated as a deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be taxed under section 44-F. The Court held that section 44-F applies only to income from shares or securities arising in periodical form and capable of being apportioned over time, whereas a liquidation receipt is a distribution of company assets and not income generated by the shares after liquidation. The deemed-dividend fiction in section 2(6A)(c) was confined to its own statutory purpose and could not be extended to section 44-F. The taxing provision could not be enlarged by implication, so the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (8) TMI 134 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170646</link>
      <description>A liquidation distribution treated as a deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be taxed under section 44-F. The Court held that section 44-F applies only to income from shares or securities arising in periodical form and capable of being apportioned over time, whereas a liquidation receipt is a distribution of company assets and not income generated by the shares after liquidation. The deemed-dividend fiction in section 2(6A)(c) was confined to its own statutory purpose and could not be extended to section 44-F. The taxing provision could not be enlarged by implication, so the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>