9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? and 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding that there was no justification for declaring a lesser dividend?" However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Ltd. to the extent of 18.25 lakhs of rupees and interest was payable along with the principal in yearly instalments for which provision had to be made and that reserves had to be conserved as a matter of commercial prudence. The ITO refused to accept the assessee's stand. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee's case and held that the ITO was not justified in in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether, in the assessment year, the assessee was in a position to declare a larger dividend. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and ultimately found that as on March 31, 1976, as against the paid-up capital of Rs. 10 lakhs, the assessee's reserves and surplus were as much as Rs. 22,23,824 comprised of (1) the general reserve of Rs. 13,69,990 after transfer of Rs. 50,000 from the profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal agreed with the ITO that the assessee should have declared 45 per cent. dividend as required by s. 104 of the Act and as the dividend had not been declared in the assessment year, the ITO was justified in invoking s. 104. Since the matter arises purely from the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to refer the questions set out above. The petition is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
