1992 (11) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the said amount of Rs. 24,66,670 being the amount recommended by the board of directors for approval as dividend at the annual general meeting of the company should b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s subsequently declared cannot be deducted from the general reserve as on April 1, 1973. This finding has been set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, the above question has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee-company. The learned advocate for the assessee-company has drawn our attention to a decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of CIT v. Burma Shell Refineries .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ench said that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.'s case [1981] 132 ITR 559 would not apply. The general reserve as on the first day of the accounting period cannot, therefore, be reduced to the extent of a dividend which was subsequently declared and which was paid out of this general reserve. The ratio of this judgment directly applies to the facts of the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X