<?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>1969 (7) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7671</link>
    <description>Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was read by reference to the relevant previous year and the dividend distribution period extending 12 months beyond its expiry. The applicable statutory percentage was held to be the pre-amendment rate, because the Finance Act, 1959 enhancement to 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. was expressly effective only from 1 April 1960 and could not operate earlier by implication. On the dividend shortfall question, the computation was tested on that basis, and the Tribunal&#039;s treatment of processing receipts and distributable surplus was not found to warrant interference; the shortfall was treated as within the 5 per cent. margin for further dividend declaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7671</link>
      <description>Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was read by reference to the relevant previous year and the dividend distribution period extending 12 months beyond its expiry. The applicable statutory percentage was held to be the pre-amendment rate, because the Finance Act, 1959 enhancement to 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. was expressly effective only from 1 April 1960 and could not operate earlier by implication. On the dividend shortfall question, the computation was tested on that basis, and the Tribunal&#039;s treatment of processing receipts and distributable surplus was not found to warrant interference; the shortfall was treated as within the 5 per cent. margin for further dividend declaration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>