1. The assessm ent year involved is 1974-75 for which the relevant year of account was the period ending March 31, 1974.
2. The case of the assessee is that even if it has sold the rubber plantation, the profits derived from the sale of plantation should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposition of tax under section 104 .Of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of the appellant is that only profits and gains arising out of trading activity can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question whether the company had distributed the requisite percentage of dividends out of its profits. are of the view that the High Court has come to the right le company being an investment company did not have any city. It bought and sold its investments from time to time. Ttributable to sale of investment may be assessable as capital we see no reason why such gains made by investment are not available for distribution as dividend to its . There is no finding of fact that the assessee, as a nessm an, had to retain the entirety of the gains for any quirement of the company.
3. Section 104 is very clear. A atage of profits or gains made by the assessee will have to as dividends , otherwise an order under section 104 will ssed. There is no dispute that the company is a section 104 he facts of this case we hold that the appeal is without any Dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .