9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the dividend declared by the company was reasonable. Analysis: The Departmental appeal was filed against the order of the AAC, which held that the dividend declared by the private limited company, engaged in alcohol and spirit distribution, was reasonable. The company had a commercial profit of Rs. 6,33,954, with a paid-up capital of Rs. 4,41,000, and declared a dividend of 40% on the face value amounting to Rs. 1,76,400. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the dividend fell short of the statutory percentage, leading to a demand for additional supertax. The company provided reasons for not declaring a higher dividend, including under-provision for surtax, disallowed income, capital expenditure, and the need for a bonded warehouse. The AAC ruled in favor of the company, considering the under-provision for taxes, and held that no profit was left undistributed. The Department argued on appeal that the company had sufficient provisions for taxes, citing available finances and lack of loans as indicators of financial soundness. However, the company highlighted the short provision for taxes and the necessity of constructing a bonded warehouse to streamline operations. They also mentioned the mandatory reserve requirement under the Companies Act. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC, emphasizing that the order under section 104 was unwarranted, considering the company's circumstances and legitimate reasons for not distributing a higher dividend. The Tribunal referred to a Kerala High Court decision emphasizing the importance of determining the reasonableness of dividends based on commercial profits and relevant business factors. It noted discrepancies in the tax provisions and highlighted the ongoing construction of a bonded warehouse as a crucial business need influencing dividend distribution. Additionally, the mandatory reserve allocation under section 205(2)(A) of the Companies Act was considered. The Tribunal concluded that the company had distributed a reasonable dividend, taking into account all relevant factors, and dismissed the Departmental appeal. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where reasons for lower dividends were not substantiated or were deemed unreasonable. It clarified that the company's actions, such as the fixed deposit made for securing a loan, were business-driven necessities rather than indications of surplus funds. The Tribunal rejected the Department's arguments regarding the absence of loans and cautioned against simplistic assessments of the company's financial health. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing the company's valid justifications for the dividend declared and dismissing the Departmental appeal.
|
