<?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 (9) TMI 76 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23849</link>
    <description>For surtax computation under the Surtax Act, the treatment of dividend credited to general reserve was examined and the cited authority was applied to hold that the dividend amount was not to be excluded from the general reserve while computing capital base, with the point answered for the Revenue. The interaction between rule 4 of the Second Schedule and a deduction under section 80-I was also considered; on the stated facts, binding precedent was treated as making rule 4 inapplicable where the deduction formed part of total income, and this point was answered for the assessee. The reference thus produced mixed answers on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 76 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23849</link>
      <description>For surtax computation under the Surtax Act, the treatment of dividend credited to general reserve was examined and the cited authority was applied to hold that the dividend amount was not to be excluded from the general reserve while computing capital base, with the point answered for the Revenue. The interaction between rule 4 of the Second Schedule and a deduction under section 80-I was also considered; on the stated facts, binding precedent was treated as making rule 4 inapplicable where the deduction formed part of total income, and this point was answered for the assessee. The reference thus produced mixed answers on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>