<?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>1979 (1) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36114</link>
    <description>Section 23A(1) turned on the smallness of commercial profits, not assessable profits. The Income-tax Officer had to assess the company&#039;s position as a prudent director would, considering actual accounting profits, past losses, surplus funds and future needs, before treating a dividend as unreasonable. Where the company&#039;s books, depreciation basis, directors&#039; approval and auditors&#039; acceptance supported the commercial accounts, a different depreciation figure used in tax assessment did not by itself justify invoking the provision. An order for deemed dividend could not be sustained solely on the assessment computation, and the revenue&#039;s approach was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (1) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36114</link>
      <description>Section 23A(1) turned on the smallness of commercial profits, not assessable profits. The Income-tax Officer had to assess the company&#039;s position as a prudent director would, considering actual accounting profits, past losses, surplus funds and future needs, before treating a dividend as unreasonable. Where the company&#039;s books, depreciation basis, directors&#039; approval and auditors&#039; acceptance supported the commercial accounts, a different depreciation figure used in tax assessment did not by itself justify invoking the provision. An order for deemed dividend could not be sustained solely on the assessment computation, and the revenue&#039;s approach was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>