<?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>1996 (8) TMI 26 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17201</link>
    <description>In computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, dividend income could be excluded only to the extent it had actually been included in assessed total income under the Income-tax Act. Amounts already reduced by the section 80M deduction under Chapter VI-A could not be excluded again for surtax purposes, because the surtax computation had to follow the income as finally assessed. The earlier decision on the same point was followed, and double exclusion of dividend income was held impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:48:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 26 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17201</link>
      <description>In computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, dividend income could be excluded only to the extent it had actually been included in assessed total income under the Income-tax Act. Amounts already reduced by the section 80M deduction under Chapter VI-A could not be excluded again for surtax purposes, because the surtax computation had to follow the income as finally assessed. The earlier decision on the same point was followed, and double exclusion of dividend income was held impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>