<?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>1964 (6) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276547</link>
    <description>A liquidator&#039;s later distribution is taxable as dividend only if it is shown, in fact, to be attributable to accumulated profits remaining at the date of distribution; section 2(6A)(c) creates a limited legal fiction and does not deem every liquidation payment to be dividend. The earlier assessment of part of the fund under the pre-amendment proviso did not by itself establish that all accumulated profits had been exhausted. Because no finding was made that the later distribution represented accumulated profits, and no apportionment or dissection was undertaken, the statutory basis for dividend tax failed. The amount was therefore not taxable as dividend, although the Chief Justice dissented and would have upheld taxability to the extent traceable to remaining profits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:34:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (6) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276547</link>
      <description>A liquidator&#039;s later distribution is taxable as dividend only if it is shown, in fact, to be attributable to accumulated profits remaining at the date of distribution; section 2(6A)(c) creates a limited legal fiction and does not deem every liquidation payment to be dividend. The earlier assessment of part of the fund under the pre-amendment proviso did not by itself establish that all accumulated profits had been exhausted. Because no finding was made that the later distribution represented accumulated profits, and no apportionment or dissection was undertaken, the statutory basis for dividend tax failed. The amount was therefore not taxable as dividend, although the Chief Justice dissented and would have upheld taxability to the extent traceable to remaining profits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>