Skip to content


Authority for Advance Rulings Court April 2005 Judgments Home Cases Authority for Advance Rulings 2005 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.033 seconds)

Apr 06 2005 (TRI)

In Re: Madura Coats (P) Ltd.

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2005)195CTRAAR193

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and A.S. Narang, Members For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.E. Dastur and P.J. Pardiwalla, Advs.Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(22), 2(32) and 245Q(1); Finance Act, 2004; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 2(6A)CIT v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar, (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC); Nandlal Kanoria v. CIT, (1980) 122 ITR 405 (Cal); Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT, (1980) 122 ITR 1 (SC) Dividend--DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(e)Applicability of provisionsApplicant is an Indian company and is a tax resident of India. CHL is the main holding company and CPL, TTL and CFL are its subsidiaries. CFL is holding company of JPC which holds 99.9998 per cent and TTL holds 0,.0002 per cent of shares of applicant company MCPL. Loan was advanced by MCPL to CFL out of its accmulated profits.The CIT was of the opinion that this loan amount was deemed dividend.Held: Loan advanced by MCPL to CFL would not constitute deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) because it...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2005 (TRI)

In Re: Briggs of Burton (India) (P)

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2005)195CTRAAR113

Appellants: In Re: Briggs of Burton (India) (P) Ltd. Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and A.S. Narang, Members Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(6A), 2(22) and 245Q(1); Income Tax Act, 1922; Companies Act, 1956 - Section 80A CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co, Ltd., (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC); Sashibala Navnitlal v. CIT, (1964) 54 ITR 478 (Guj) Dividend--DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(a)Allotment of bonus redeemable preference shares to existing non-resident equity share holdersIssue of bonus redeemable preference shares to the existing non-resident equity shareholders would not be treated as deemed dividend at the time of issue, but only when it can be said that there is a release of assets of the company to the shareholders within meaning of sub-clause (a) of section 2(22). The appellant company was not, therefore, required to deduct tax at source.1. In this case, an application under Section 245Q(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was received on 27th Dec., 2004 in Form No. 34...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //