<?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>1967 (9) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7059</link>
    <description>Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 requires a commercial assessment of whether a larger dividend could reasonably have been declared, judged from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. The enquiry is not confined to past losses or the smallness of current profits; it must also consider the company&#039;s overall financial position, available surplus, future requirements, and other relevant business factors. Applying that test, the company&#039;s earlier hedging profit had been substantially eroded by imminent and later actualised losses by the time the dividend decision was made, so a larger dividend could not reasonably have been expected and the order under section 23A was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7059</link>
      <description>Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 requires a commercial assessment of whether a larger dividend could reasonably have been declared, judged from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. The enquiry is not confined to past losses or the smallness of current profits; it must also consider the company&#039;s overall financial position, available surplus, future requirements, and other relevant business factors. Applying that test, the company&#039;s earlier hedging profit had been substantially eroded by imminent and later actualised losses by the time the dividend decision was made, so a larger dividend could not reasonably have been expected and the order under section 23A was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>