Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Under the historical Indian income-tax law considered by the Supreme Court, declaring a dividend did not by itself establish that it had been paid or credited for tax purposes. The key question was whether the company had discharged its liability and made the amount unconditionally available to the shareholder. In Padmavati R. Saraiya v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, the Court held that a deferred portion was not paid or credited when shareholders could not draw it from a separate account.
What the Supreme Court decided
In Padmavati R. Saraiya and Others v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-1, decided on 22 September 1964, the Supreme Court of India considered when a dividend counted as paid or credited under section 16(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved a company doing business in India and Pakistan and dividends connected to profits earned in both places.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
For a later dividend, the company made one half payable promptly and postponed the other half until remittances from Pakistan became available. The Court held that the postponed Pakistan portion had not been credited or paid: it had not been placed in a separate account from which the shareholders could draw it. The Court dismissed the appeals. The judgment is available at Indian Kanoon.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →When was a dividend treated as received?
The Court applied the historical section 16(2) test that a dividend was paid when the company discharged its liability and made the amount unconditionally available to the entitled shareholder. A credit could count too, but only if it likewise made the money unconditionally available.
#1 Best Overall
“In general, dividend may be said to be paid within the meaning of s. 16(2) when the Company discharges its liability and makes the amount of dividend unconditionally available to the member entitled thereto”.
The Supreme Court quoted this formulation from J. Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi. It focused on whether the shareholder had access to the amount, not merely on whether the company had declared the dividend or recorded an entry in its own books.
Rank #2
How the facts affect the timing question
| Situation | What the historical ruling indicates |
|---|---|
| Dividend declared, but payment deferred or conditional | Declaration alone did not establish payment or credit. The amount had to become unconditionally available under the statutory test. |
| Amount appears in company accounts, but the shareholder cannot draw it | A company-side entry alone was insufficient in the circumstances before the Court. |
| Dividend paid or effectively credited so the shareholder can draw it | This may satisfy the historical availability test; physical receipt was not stated to be essential. |
The judgment dealt with distinct dividend portions and timing issues. Its conclusion about the deferred Pakistan portion should not be collapsed into a claim that all declared dividends are taxable only when cash reaches a shareholder, or that declaration always fixes the tax year.
The separate treaty issue
The dispute also concerned an agreement between India and Pakistan made in 1947. The Court read it as allowing each Dominion to assess tax under its own laws, with the agreement providing for abatement. The certificate showing assessment in the other Dominion, which was required for the relief claimed, had not been produced. The treaty point was separate from the question of whether the deferred dividend had been paid or credited.
Which case does the title refer to?
There is an unresolved case-name discrepancy. The exact-title page identifies Benaras State Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow, but that page could not be inspected. The accessible full judgment supporting the timing discussion is Padmavati R. Saraiya and Others v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-1. The available information does not establish that these are the same case, so they should not be treated as interchangeable. The unverified title-page identification appears at The Law Observer.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this means for dividend taxation today
Padmavati interpreted section 16(2) of India’s Income-tax Act, 1922, in a historical cross-border setting. It is not a complete guide to current Indian dividend taxation and does not, by itself, establish the present statutory rule or determine the tax year for a modern transaction. Anyone applying the decision to a current return or arrangement should check the law currently in force and the facts governing when the amount became available.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
