9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the mode of computation of capital gains in the company's assessment has no bearing on whether the shareholder has received any dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the liability to pay tax by the shareholder is co-extensive with the liability of the company to pay capital gains tax. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that capital profits made by a company and distributed by the liquidator are assessable as dividends only to the extent that the capital profits give rise to capital gains assessable as such. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The Tribunal held that the mode of computation of capital gains in the company's assessment does not affect the determination of whether the shareholder has received a dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legislative history and the interpretation of "accumulated profits" under section 2(22)(c) and Explanation 1. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that "accumulated profits" do not include capital gains that are not taxable, thus supporting the Tribunal's interpretation. Issue 2: The Tribunal's view that the liability to pay tax by the shareholder is co-extensive with the liability of the company to pay capital gains tax was challenged. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that "accumulated profits" for the purpose of section 2(22)(c) should be interpreted independently of the company's tax liability. The High Court held that only those capital gains which are taxable should be included in "accumulated profits," thus rejecting the Tribunal's co-extensive liability theory. Issue 3: The Tribunal's decision that capital profits distributed by a liquidator are assessable as dividends only to the extent that they give rise to taxable capital gains was examined. The High Court supported this view, reiterating that "accumulated profits" do not include non-taxable capital gains. The Court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in First ITO v. Short Brothers P. Ltd. and Tea Estates India P. Ltd. v. CIT, which established that non-taxable capital gains do not form part of "accumulated profits" and thus cannot be treated as dividends. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions as follows: 1. In the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 2. In the negative and in favor of the assessee. 3. In the negative and in favor of the assessee. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.
|
