https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15881 The court ruled in favor of the Tribunal's decision, denying the deduction of surtax liability in the computation of business income. It held that commission paid to directors falls under remuneration subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court concluded that the subsidy received from SIPCOT should not be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation. Additionally, it affirmed that work-in-progress and goods-in-transit should be included in the computation of capital employed for section 80J relief, in line with relevant legal precedents and interpretations of the Income-tax Act. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:33:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15881 The court ruled in favor of the Tribunal's decision, denying the deduction of surtax liability in the computation of business income. It held that commission paid to directors falls under remuneration subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court concluded that the subsidy received from SIPCOT should not be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation. Additionally, it affirmed that work-in-progress and goods-in-transit should be included in the computation of capital employed for section 80J relief, in line with relevant legal precedents and interpretations of the Income-tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15881