<?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>1990 (1) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20660</link>
    <description>For surtax capital computation under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, dividend declared after the close of the accounting period is not part of reserve capital. A dividend becomes an enforceable liability only on declaration at the annual general meeting; before that point, it is neither an accrued nor contingent liability and cannot be treated as a provision existing on the first day of the accounting year. The relation-back theory was rejected for this purpose, and the amount set apart for dividend was excluded from capital computation, leaving the reference answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20660</link>
      <description>For surtax capital computation under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, dividend declared after the close of the accounting period is not part of reserve capital. A dividend becomes an enforceable liability only on declaration at the annual general meeting; before that point, it is neither an accrued nor contingent liability and cannot be treated as a provision existing on the first day of the accounting year. The relation-back theory was rejected for this purpose, and the amount set apart for dividend was excluded from capital computation, leaving the reference answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>