https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23715 Earlier Madras High Court precedent governed both surtax questions, so the court applied the same rule consistently. Gross dividend income, rather than net dividend income, was required to be deducted in computing chargeable profits for the relevant assessment years, and the point was decided against the Revenue. The same binding approach also required exclusion of the sum of Rs. 2,45,000 while calculating the cost of investments under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, again against the Revenue. Both referred questions were thus answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 11 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:28:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23715 Earlier Madras High Court precedent governed both surtax questions, so the court applied the same rule consistently. Gross dividend income, rather than net dividend income, was required to be deducted in computing chargeable profits for the relevant assessment years, and the point was decided against the Revenue. The same binding approach also required exclusion of the sum of Rs. 2,45,000 while calculating the cost of investments under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, again against the Revenue. Both referred questions were thus answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23715