9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the period of 12 months following the last day of the previous year i.e. 30th June 1975 under consideration, though it did declare the requisite dividend within a week after the prescribed date. The ITO started proceedings u/s 104 of the Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why an order u/s 104 of the Act should not be passed against it. The assessee stated that it was an industrial company and that it declared a dividend of Rs. 28,600 on 8th July 1976 which is slightly out of the prescribed period. The ITO did not agree with the explanation of the assessee. He held, that the assessee company had violated the provisions of s. 104 of the Act, and so was liable to the levy of the additional tax envisaged therein. He imposed an add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74. It is obvious that the assessee has all along proceeded on the footing that the aforesaid Act applies to the assessee by virtue of one or the other sub-sections of s. 3 of the aforesaid Act. This fact is quite clear from the grounds taken before the CIT (A) as well as the additional clarifications filed before him. Sec. 8 of the aforesaid Act of 1974 does say that the provisions thereof will override the provisions of the IT Act. In other words, if the Act of 1974 applies to any particular company, then that company is prohibited from declaring a dividend of more than 12 per cent of its paid up equity capital (excluding the dividend on preference shares). Sec. 3 of the Act of 1974 enumerates the various categories of the companies to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that could have been declared under the aforesaid Act. After going through the grounds of appeal and the additional clarifications filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT (A), particularly paragraph 7 thereof, we are of the opinion that the ground now canvassed before us does arise out of the aforesaid order of the CIT (A). The case of the assessee, all along, is evidently based upon the basic fact that it comes under the aforesaid Act of 1974 so that it is prohibited from declaring a dividend higher than that authorised under that Act. The CIT (A) has also referred to the said Act in paragraph 7 of his order. Even otherwise, the question raised before us in this appeal goes to the very root of the whole issue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
