9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en numbered. We have been told that the Tribunal had given detailed judgment for the said assessment year whilst disposing of a similar contention of the assessee in Income-tax Application No. 7516 of 1967-68. That judgment has been perused by us and we are in substantial agreement with what the Tribunal has observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said appellate judgment. However, we will set down a few facts to dispose of the present reference. The reference for the earlier year will be required to be disposed of in accordance with our present decision after the same is duly numbered. The assessee before us in this reference is the executor of the estate of her husband, late P. K. Badiani. The said P. K. Badiani owned 10,460 shares of Sadh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which it is so set off.' " The question, therefore, is whether the dividends paid by Sadhana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. for the three assessment years could be regarded as having been set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of sub-cl. (e) to the extent to which the dividend was so set off. Now, we find from the detailed judgment of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year 1962-63, that the payment of the dividends for these three assessment years and for the said year had been made by the company (Sadhana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.) to the assessee without any set off, and indeed no set-off was possible because by that time the assessee had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be fully complied with and in the instant case, they could not be complied with and were not complied with. If that be so, the exclusion of the dividends from the income of the assessee for these three years as well as for the earlier year was neither permissible nor possible. Reference was made at the Bar to three cases, none of which has direct bearing on the question and would not seem to assist the assessee in the construction which he seeks from us. The first of the said case was CIT v. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom). That case was concerned with calculations of deemed dividends under s. 2(6A)(e) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and that decision appeared to be irrelevant for the purpose of putting the proper interpretation on cl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
