<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1982 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61725</link>
    <description>A refundable deposit made under a statutory surcharge-relief scheme was held not to be payment of surcharge itself, because the scheme operated only to exempt or reduce surcharge liability and left the deposit in the character of a refundable deposit. It could therefore not be included in income-tax payable for computing chargeable profits under rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The attempted withdrawal of the surcharge deduction by rectification under section 13 was also treated as improper, because the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. The surcharge deduction was ultimately sustained as withdrawn and the assessee&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:34:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61725</link>
      <description>A refundable deposit made under a statutory surcharge-relief scheme was held not to be payment of surcharge itself, because the scheme operated only to exempt or reduce surcharge liability and left the deposit in the character of a refundable deposit. It could therefore not be included in income-tax payable for computing chargeable profits under rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The attempted withdrawal of the surcharge deduction by rectification under section 13 was also treated as improper, because the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. The surcharge deduction was ultimately sustained as withdrawn and the assessee&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>