https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19273 In computing capital for surtax purposes under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the court applied binding Supreme Court authority and held that no proportionate deduction was required in respect of section 80J relief for the relevant assessment year, answering that question in favour of the assessee. On surcharge treatment, a deposit with the Industrial Development Bank of India made in lieu of surcharge under the Finance Act, 1976 was not treated as "surcharge on income-tax" for deduction while computing chargeable profits under rule 2 of the First Schedule. The statutory deposit merely relieved the liability to surcharge and could not be expanded by legal fiction or beneficial interpretation; this question was answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19273 In computing capital for surtax purposes under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the court applied binding Supreme Court authority and held that no proportionate deduction was required in respect of section 80J relief for the relevant assessment year, answering that question in favour of the assessee. On surcharge treatment, a deposit with the Industrial Development Bank of India made in lieu of surcharge under the Finance Act, 1976 was not treated as "surcharge on income-tax" for deduction while computing chargeable profits under rule 2 of the First Schedule. The statutory deposit merely relieved the liability to surcharge and could not be expanded by legal fiction or beneficial interpretation; this question was answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19273