<?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>1986 (1) TMI 84 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26792</link>
    <description>Surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was treated by the majority as a charge on profits after they are earned and therefore not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the deduction was disallowed and the Revenue succeeded. The majority further held that the statutory scheme, including section 15 of the Surtax Act, reinforced the conclusion that surtax is not deductible business expenditure, making it unnecessary to rely solely on section 40(a)(ii). A dissenting judge considered surtax deductible as an incident of carrying on business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:03:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 84 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26792</link>
      <description>Surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was treated by the majority as a charge on profits after they are earned and therefore not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the deduction was disallowed and the Revenue succeeded. The majority further held that the statutory scheme, including section 15 of the Surtax Act, reinforced the conclusion that surtax is not deductible business expenditure, making it unnecessary to rely solely on section 40(a)(ii). A dissenting judge considered surtax deductible as an incident of carrying on business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>