<?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>1978 (7) TMI 19 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36538</link>
    <description>Under section 23A, dividend reasonableness is tested from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, having regard to the company&#039;s financial position and genuine business requirements. On the facts, the company&#039;s rehabilitation programme, acquisition of new plant and machinery, and first-time borrowing for business needs showed that retention of profits was commercially justified, so the Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of the additional super-tax order was upheld. On limitation, an order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Act, 1955, was treated as falling within the limitation principle under section 34(3), following Supreme Court authority, and that issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:50:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 19 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36538</link>
      <description>Under section 23A, dividend reasonableness is tested from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, having regard to the company&#039;s financial position and genuine business requirements. On the facts, the company&#039;s rehabilitation programme, acquisition of new plant and machinery, and first-time borrowing for business needs showed that retention of profits was commercially justified, so the Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of the additional super-tax order was upheld. On limitation, an order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Act, 1955, was treated as falling within the limitation principle under section 34(3), following Supreme Court authority, and that issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>