<?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>1984 (11) TMI 89 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57407</link>
    <description>Section 104 additional tax on failure to distribute dividends was considered in light of the actual availability of distributable income. Although the statutory computation of gross total income and distributable income could mechanically support the assessment, the adjustment that added back an actual expenditure created only an artificial income figure. The provision is directed at preventing retention of real commercial profits, not taxing an assessee where dividend distribution was in fact impossible. On the facts described, the required satisfaction for levy could not be reached because no income was actually available for distribution, so the additional tax was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:19:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 89 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57407</link>
      <description>Section 104 additional tax on failure to distribute dividends was considered in light of the actual availability of distributable income. Although the statutory computation of gross total income and distributable income could mechanically support the assessment, the adjustment that added back an actual expenditure created only an artificial income figure. The provision is directed at preventing retention of real commercial profits, not taxing an assessee where dividend distribution was in fact impossible. On the facts described, the required satisfaction for levy could not be reached because no income was actually available for distribution, so the additional tax was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>