<?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>1996 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16840</link>
    <description>The High Court of MADRAS interpreted section 80J of the Income-tax Act regarding the treatment of proposed dividend as a debt owed for capital computation. The court held that the proposed dividend should be considered for capital computation only upon approval by the general body meeting, not automatically on January 1, 1971. Relying on precedents, the court ruled that the proposed dividend did not crystallize into a debt owed until approved, aligning with principles from relevant case laws. Consequently, the court favored the assessee, denying the Department&#039;s appeal and affirming that the proposed dividend was not a debt owed for capital computation under section 80J.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16840</link>
      <description>The High Court of MADRAS interpreted section 80J of the Income-tax Act regarding the treatment of proposed dividend as a debt owed for capital computation. The court held that the proposed dividend should be considered for capital computation only upon approval by the general body meeting, not automatically on January 1, 1971. Relying on precedents, the court ruled that the proposed dividend did not crystallize into a debt owed until approved, aligning with principles from relevant case laws. Consequently, the court favored the assessee, denying the Department&#039;s appeal and affirming that the proposed dividend was not a debt owed for capital computation under section 80J.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>