https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253096 The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80M should be calculated without reducing the dividend income by the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), ensuring no double deduction. The issue of allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of 40% of income without restricting the reserve amount was not considered due to lack of challenge. Amortization expenses for acquiring leasehold land were deemed capital expenditure, not revenue, based on precedent. The appeal was concluded in favor of the respondent-assessee on the first issue and against on the third, with no costs awarded. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253096 The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80M should be calculated without reducing the dividend income by the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), ensuring no double deduction. The issue of allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of 40% of income without restricting the reserve amount was not considered due to lack of challenge. Amortization expenses for acquiring leasehold land were deemed capital expenditure, not revenue, based on precedent. The appeal was concluded in favor of the respondent-assessee on the first issue and against on the third, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253096