<?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>1990 (3) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21054</link>
    <description>A question on whether a deposit under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, could be treated as payment of surcharge for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was held to be debatable. Because conflicting Tribunal views existed, and a Special Bench had taken the view that such a deposit could not be equated with surcharge payment, the issue was not a patent error apparent from the record. A matter on which two reasonable views are possible cannot be corrected through rectification proceedings. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:10:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21054</link>
      <description>A question on whether a deposit under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, could be treated as payment of surcharge for computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was held to be debatable. Because conflicting Tribunal views existed, and a Special Bench had taken the view that such a deposit could not be equated with surcharge payment, the issue was not a patent error apparent from the record. A matter on which two reasonable views are possible cannot be corrected through rectification proceedings. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>