<?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>1989 (8) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23726</link>
    <description>For surtax computation under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, dividend income from an Indian company is excluded only to the extent it is finally included in assessed total income under the Income-tax Act after Chapter VI-A deductions, not on a gross basis. The construction treats section 80M deduction as part of the income computation and rejects reliance on the earlier Cloth Traders view after Distributors (Baroda). Rule 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be used to proportionately reduce the capital apportionable to the section 80M deduction, as that point was already settled against such adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:50:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23726</link>
      <description>For surtax computation under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, dividend income from an Indian company is excluded only to the extent it is finally included in assessed total income under the Income-tax Act after Chapter VI-A deductions, not on a gross basis. The construction treats section 80M deduction as part of the income computation and rejects reliance on the earlier Cloth Traders view after Distributors (Baroda). Rule 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be used to proportionately reduce the capital apportionable to the section 80M deduction, as that point was already settled against such adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>