<?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>1998 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15756</link>
    <description>Where dividend was declared and distributed after the prescribed period because the audit was completed later, the Tribunal found that the delay caused no detriment to the Revenue. On that factual basis, section 104(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied, since payment of dividend within time would not have produced any benefit to the Revenue. The Income-tax Officer therefore could not validly make an order under section 104(1), and the assessee was not liable to additional income-tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:17:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15756</link>
      <description>Where dividend was declared and distributed after the prescribed period because the audit was completed later, the Tribunal found that the delay caused no detriment to the Revenue. On that factual basis, section 104(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied, since payment of dividend within time would not have produced any benefit to the Revenue. The Income-tax Officer therefore could not validly make an order under section 104(1), and the assessee was not liable to additional income-tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>