https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24878 The court upheld the reduction of rebate on dividend for assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, stating it was a limitation on available rebate, not a levy on income. It found the reduction justified under relevant Finance Acts. Questions on disallowance of salary and litigation expenses were not pursued. The court ruled that duty refunds should be included in rebate calculations but excluded premium gain on yarn value. Expenditure on new looms was deemed necessary and included in cost for depreciation and development rebate. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis based on legal provisions and precedents. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24878 The court upheld the reduction of rebate on dividend for assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, stating it was a limitation on available rebate, not a levy on income. It found the reduction justified under relevant Finance Acts. Questions on disallowance of salary and litigation expenses were not pursued. The court ruled that duty refunds should be included in rebate calculations but excluded premium gain on yarn value. Expenditure on new looms was deemed necessary and included in cost for depreciation and development rebate. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis based on legal provisions and precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24878