<?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>1949 (4) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184633</link>
    <description>Section 23A may apply to a property-owning company assessed on notional income under Section 9, but its dividend-distribution test must account for actual distributable profits. Assessable income may exceed actual profits, while company law permits dividends only from profits and prohibits distributions from capital. Where the company has distributed all actual profits as dividends, a larger distribution cannot reasonably be required merely because the declared dividend is below the prescribed proportion of assessable income. On these facts, Section 23A was not properly invoked because no evidence established that a further lawful dividend could have been declared.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:40:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (4) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184633</link>
      <description>Section 23A may apply to a property-owning company assessed on notional income under Section 9, but its dividend-distribution test must account for actual distributable profits. Assessable income may exceed actual profits, while company law permits dividends only from profits and prohibits distributions from capital. Where the company has distributed all actual profits as dividends, a larger distribution cannot reasonably be required merely because the declared dividend is below the prescribed proportion of assessable income. On these facts, Section 23A was not properly invoked because no evidence established that a further lawful dividend could have been declared.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>