1994 (3) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR C. J.-This reference pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. For the assessment year 1973-74, the relevant previous year of the assessee was January 1, 1972, to March 31, 1973. The assessee-company carries on the business of running a textile mill. On May 25, 1972, the assessee-company declared its dividend for the year 1971. A company called Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t year 1973-74, the assessee-company was sought to be taxed in respect of the dividend income received by M. G. Ltd. which was amalgamated with the assessee-company during the previous year. The contention of the assessee was that M. G. Ltd. had ceased to exist from April 1, 1972, by virtue of the orders of amalgamation passed by the two High Courts and that the dividend income which was receiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Messrs. Gagalbhai Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "the jute company") was amalgamated with M. G. Ltd. with effect from April 1, 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 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee-company receive dividend from the jute company after April 1, 1968. The same ratio will apply to the present case as the order of amalgamation took effect during the relevant previous year in which the dividend was declared. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 64....