<?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>1981 (9) TMI 84 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29525</link>
    <description>Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was tested against the prudent businessman standard for deciding whether additional dividend ought to have been distributed from commercial profits. The company&#039;s business object included running a newspaper and providing employment to displaced persons, and the Tribunal found that the press was old and required machinery rehabilitation. Amounts written off towards goodwill and transferred to reserve were held to be justified on business grounds. On those facts, the remaining distributable surplus was not sufficient to justify invoking section 23A(1), and the provision was held not to have been rightly applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:12:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 84 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29525</link>
      <description>Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was tested against the prudent businessman standard for deciding whether additional dividend ought to have been distributed from commercial profits. The company&#039;s business object included running a newspaper and providing employment to displaced persons, and the Tribunal found that the press was old and required machinery rehabilitation. Amounts written off towards goodwill and transferred to reserve were held to be justified on business grounds. On those facts, the remaining distributable surplus was not sufficient to justify invoking section 23A(1), and the provision was held not to have been rightly applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>