<?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>1973 (8) TMI 41 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39633</link>
    <description>Section 23A(1) applies only when non-distribution of dividend is not justified by losses or by the smallness of profits, assessed on commercial principles from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. Assessable income and commercial profits are not identical, so an amount brought to tax does not automatically become distributable profit. On the company&#039;s balance-sheet and profit and loss account, its weak financial position, heavy indebtedness, doubtful recoveries and negligible surplus showed that dividend declaration would have been unreasonable and prejudicial to creditors. Disputed Government dues also supported the directors&#039; decision not to declare dividend, so the provision was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:16:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (8) TMI 41 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39633</link>
      <description>Section 23A(1) applies only when non-distribution of dividend is not justified by losses or by the smallness of profits, assessed on commercial principles from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. Assessable income and commercial profits are not identical, so an amount brought to tax does not automatically become distributable profit. On the company&#039;s balance-sheet and profit and loss account, its weak financial position, heavy indebtedness, doubtful recoveries and negligible surplus showed that dividend declaration would have been unreasonable and prejudicial to creditors. Disputed Government dues also supported the directors&#039; decision not to declare dividend, so the provision was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>