https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23387 The company's non-declaration of dividend was upheld as commercially justified, because the authorities found that business needs and liability to the holding company required retention of funds for repayment. The challenge failed since the dispute depended wholly on the factual assessment of the company's financial position and business exigencies, not on any legal principle requiring further examination. On that basis, the issue was treated as a pure question of fact, no question of law arose, and the levy of additional tax was not disturbed. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23387 The company's non-declaration of dividend was upheld as commercially justified, because the authorities found that business needs and liability to the holding company required retention of funds for repayment. The challenge failed since the dispute depended wholly on the factual assessment of the company's financial position and business exigencies, not on any legal principle requiring further examination. On that basis, the issue was treated as a pure question of fact, no question of law arose, and the levy of additional tax was not disturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23387