9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. The Revenue is the petitioner in both these cases. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Original Petition No. 10703 of 1987 was not in the list. When Original Petition No. 10928 of 1987 was argued, counsel appearing on both sides agreed that Original Petition No. 10703 of 1987 may also be called up and dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the Income-tax Officer excluded only 40% of the dividend. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as also the Appellate Tribunal, followed the decision of this court in A. V. Thomas and Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 515, and held that the entire dividend is excludible. The Revenue filed applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act to refer certain question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... First Schedule ?" It was argued that in dealing with the development reserve allowance, the Appellate Tribunal has not entered any definite finding, but only purported to follow its earlier decisions in Peermade Tea Co.'s case in S. T. A. NOS. 4 and 5/Coch/1981. There is no finding that the facts in this case are exactly identical and so no part of the development allowance reserve has been allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in paragraph 7 of the original petition are referable questions of law. Regarding the first question, we feel that there is no definite finding by the Appellate Tribunal except referring to its earlier decision in Peermade Tea Co.'s case in S. T. A. Nos. 4 and 5/Coch/81. So, question No. 1 is a referable question of law. Regarding question No. 2, we are of the view that the impact of section 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
