9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question to this court "Whether, on a true interpretation of rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in excluding Rs. 1,19,492 being the net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the allowance under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the above dividends, the net amount worked out to Rs. 1,19,492. The Surtax Officer excluded this amount only from the total income as computed under the Income-tax Act, rejecting the claim of the assessee that the deduction should have been made of the entire, amount of dividend, being the gross dividend. The assessee filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter deduction which has to be taken into consideration or the gross dividend. An identical question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. [1990] 182 ITR 396. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120, it came to the conclusion that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermining as to how the chargeable profits should be computed. We are in agreement with the Calcutta High Court that for the purpose of rule I of the First Schedule to the Companies ( Profits ) Surtax Act, 1964, in computing the chargeable profits of the previous year, the total income computed for that year under the Income-tax Act shall be adjusted by deducting the net dividend and not the gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
