TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether diminution of capital in proportion to the deductions allowed under sections 80M and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is permissible under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Analysis: The question was answered by applying the earlier decision of the same court on the construction of rule 4 of the Second Schedule. On that basis, the claimed diminution of capital linked to deductions under sections 80M and 80G was held to be permissible.
Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, diminution of capital proportionate to deductions allowed under sections 80M and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is permissible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
