9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of clause (c) of the second proviso to Para. D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1959 regarding the distribution of dividends by a company.
In this case, the primary issue revolves around the interpretation of clause (c) of the second proviso to Para. D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1959, concerning the distribution of dividends by a company. The central question is whether the term "distributed" should be understood as the actual distribution or as the declaration of dividends by the company. The judgment delves into the scenario of a private limited company that declared Rs. 1,05,000 as dividends for the calendar year 1957. The company had an account specifically for dividends, and payments were made to the shareholders and the bank. The Income-tax Officer invoked the provision of the Finance Act, 1959, to calculate the rebate withdrawal based on the declared dividend amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner opined that the term "distributed" should be construed as "dividend declared," leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. However, the assessee contended that "distributed" should be interpreted in its ordinary sense of actual distribution, irrespective of the declaration made at the annual general meeting. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing that the sum actually distributed as dividends amounted to Rs. 47,000, not the declared Rs. 1,05,000. The judgment extensively analyzed the legal interpretations provided by previous court decisions, particularly focusing on the distinction between declaration and actual distribution of dividends. The High Court, concurring with the Tribunal's decision, held that the term "has distributed" in the provision signifies the actual or constructive distribution of dividends to the shareholders post declaration. As only Rs. 47,000 was distributed by the company out of the declared amount, the rebate withdrawal was correctly restricted to this distributed sum. The judgment concludes by affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the unambiguous nature of the provision and the distinction between declaration and distribution of dividends. The judges unanimously returned the answer in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. In summary, the case primarily addresses the interpretation of the term "distributed" in the context of dividend distribution by a company under the Finance Act, 1959, ultimately clarifying that actual or constructive distribution post declaration determines the applicability of rebate withdrawal, as opposed to mere declaration without subsequent distribution.
|
