https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5480 Once an Income-tax Officer had determined the proportion of dividend under section 18(3F) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the company complied with that direction, the later successor officer could not treat the company as being in default under section 18(7) on the same basis. The operative principle is that a statutory determination, when acted upon, could not be reopened retrospectively to impose default liability for the very payment already made in accordance with it. The later invocation of section 18(7) was therefore unjustified, and the company was not liable to be treated as in default. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Sep 2018 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5480 Once an Income-tax Officer had determined the proportion of dividend under section 18(3F) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the company complied with that direction, the later successor officer could not treat the company as being in default under section 18(7) on the same basis. The operative principle is that a statutory determination, when acted upon, could not be reopened retrospectively to impose default liability for the very payment already made in accordance with it. The later invocation of section 18(7) was therefore unjustified, and the company was not liable to be treated as in default. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5480