9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M.G. Ltd."), holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 received by M. G. Ltd., which, at the relevant time, was amalgamated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany") 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 as dividend. On September 16, 1968, both the assessee-company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril 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 640. In the said case, the company had declared a dividend and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
