<?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>1991 (3) TMI 105 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22464</link>
    <description>For computation of chargeable profits under the Surtax Act, only dividend income actually included in the assessed total income after permissible deductions can be excluded; the gross dividend figure cannot be mechanically deducted. The High Court also held that a prior decision could not be applied without a definite finding that the material facts were identical, so the question whether the development allowance reserve formed part of capital required fresh adjudication. One issue was remitted to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law, while the dividend-income issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 105 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22464</link>
      <description>For computation of chargeable profits under the Surtax Act, only dividend income actually included in the assessed total income after permissible deductions can be excluded; the gross dividend figure cannot be mechanically deducted. The High Court also held that a prior decision could not be applied without a definite finding that the material facts were identical, so the question whether the development allowance reserve formed part of capital required fresh adjudication. One issue was remitted to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law, while the dividend-income issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>