1994 (3) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and J.P. Deodhar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Mrs. Sujata Manohar, CJ. - This reference pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. For the assessment year 1973-74, the relevant previous year of the assessee was 1-1-1972 to 31-3-1973. The assessee-company carried on the business of running a textile mill. On 25-5-1972, the assessee-company declared its dividend for the year 1971. A company cal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany was sought to be taxed in respect of the dividend income received by M.G. Ltd. which was amalga-mated with the assessee-company during the previous year. 2. The contention of the assessee was that M.G. Ltd. had ceased to exist from 1-4-1972 by virtue of the orders of amalgamation passed by the two High Courts and that the dividend income which was received by M.G. Ltd., which, at the rele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he jute company') was amalgamated with M. G. Ltd. with effect from 1-4-1968, by reason of the orders of amalgamation passed by the concerned High Courts. In that case, during the relevant previous year, the jute company had declared a dividend. The assessee-company was a major shareholder of the jute company and it received Rs. 2,14,250 as dividend. On 16-9-1968, both the assessee-company and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....io will apply to the present case as the order of amalgamation took effect during the relevant previous year in which the dividend was declared. 4. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam, the learned counsel for the revenue, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 640. In the said case, the company had declared a dividend and the amounts payable t....