1980 (1) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 14,839 in the first year and finding that there is no surplus for determination for the second year and cancelling both the orders of the ITO under s. 104. 2. The assessee, which is a trading company, did not declare any dividend for both the years under consideration, was subjected to penalty tax of Rs. 5,498 and Rs. 8,220 under s. 104 of the IT Act for not declaring the required dividend for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ardly of 90 paise per share. It was after full consideration that the dividends were not declared, the amount available being insignificant, and he relied upon the order of the CIT (A) for both the years. 4. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and going through the details of income returned, income assessed and cause of difference between the two due to disallowance etc. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficant per share under the peculiar circumstances of this case. The assessee elected as a prudent businessman not to declare the dividend and thus the total surplus after provision for taxes etc. is hardly significant to call for any declaration of dividend. The action of the Commr. (A) is, therefore, confirmed for both these years. 5. In the result, the Revenue's appeals for the two years are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X