<?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>1991 (6) TMI 91 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58008</link>
    <description>For surtax computation under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, only the portion of dividend income actually included in total income under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be excluded; the gross dividend is not excludible once the deduction operates only to the extent of inclusion in total income. Earlier contrary authority could not be followed after the Supreme Court decision disapproving that line of reasoning. On the capital-employed issue, pro rata increase for bonus shares issued during the year was also disallowed because the jurisdictional High Court precedent went against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:56:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 91 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58008</link>
      <description>For surtax computation under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, only the portion of dividend income actually included in total income under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be excluded; the gross dividend is not excludible once the deduction operates only to the extent of inclusion in total income. Earlier contrary authority could not be followed after the Supreme Court decision disapproving that line of reasoning. On the capital-employed issue, pro rata increase for bonus shares issued during the year was also disallowed because the jurisdictional High Court precedent went against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>