1988 (12) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that under rule 1 (viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the gross dividend and not the net dividend which actually formed part of the total income of the assessee was to be excluded from the total income of the assessee computed for the purposes of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 989] 179 ITR 142 (P H)), decided on December 1, 1988, question No. 1 is hereby answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As regards the second question, this is covered by our decision in ITR Nos. 71 to 74 of 1980 (CIT v. Pure Drinks (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 194 (P H), decided on December 1, 1988, and it is accordingly answered in the negative, aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X