<?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>1981 (4) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35814</link>
    <description>A non-resident foreign incorporated entity assessed as a company under the Income-tax Act fell within the meaning of &quot;company&quot; in the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act because that Act adopted undefined expressions from the Income-tax Act and, in ordinary legal usage, company covered incorporated entities including non-residents. The assessee was therefore liable to surtax, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35814</link>
      <description>A non-resident foreign incorporated entity assessed as a company under the Income-tax Act fell within the meaning of &quot;company&quot; in the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act because that Act adopted undefined expressions from the Income-tax Act and, in ordinary legal usage, company covered incorporated entities including non-residents. The assessee was therefore liable to surtax, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>