9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The assessee is a private company. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 for which the previous year is the calendar ending with 31st Dec., 1979. While computing the chargeable profits at. Rs. 5,25,791 the Surtax Officer deducted Rs. 89,951 as ordained under r. 1(vii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, being 50 per cent donation on which 80G relief was allowed. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and directed by his impugned orders that the Surtax Officer should apply r. 4 of Second Schedule and modify his assessment. He also directed that the Surtax Officer, however, would not enforce the collection of demand till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court on this issue. It is no doubt true that the CIT identified the decision of Karnataka High Court operating in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, according to the ruling of the Karnataka High Court, r. 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be made applicable with reference to the deduction of Rs. 89,951 granted as 80G relief to the assessee, though it was deducted from out of the chargeable profits under the First Schedule of the Surtax Act. The ld. departmental representative, Shri A. Suryanarayana Rao, submitted before us that the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns given by the CBDT. Firstly, we hold that as the ratio of the decision of the Karnataka High Court referred to above is against the impugned order of the CIT, it cannot be said that the Surtax Officer's order suffers from any error or acts as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under s. 16(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
