https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49298 Section 2(6A)(d) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a valid anti-avoidance provision, because it enlarged the dividend definition to tax distributions of accumulated profits made through capital reduction and thus fell within the legislative field of income-tax. On timing, the majority held that a distribution occurs only when the surplus is actually or constructively made available to shareholders by credit or payment, not merely when the capital reduction becomes effective. The dissent considered the distribution to arise on effectiveness of the reduction order, when the shareholder's right to the surplus crystallised. The article notes that the majority view applied the later accounting year for tax consequences. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49298 Section 2(6A)(d) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a valid anti-avoidance provision, because it enlarged the dividend definition to tax distributions of accumulated profits made through capital reduction and thus fell within the legislative field of income-tax. On timing, the majority held that a distribution occurs only when the surplus is actually or constructively made available to shareholders by credit or payment, not merely when the capital reduction becomes effective. The dissent considered the distribution to arise on effectiveness of the reduction order, when the shareholder's right to the surplus crystallised. The article notes that the majority view applied the later accounting year for tax consequences. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49298