1992 (11) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question to this court "Whether, on a true interpretation of rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Such dividend was Rs. 2,98,729. After deducting the allowance under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the above dividends, the net amount worked out to Rs. 1,19,492. The Surtax Officer excluded this amount only from the total income as computed under the Income-tax Act, rejecting the claim of the assessee that the deduction should have been made of the entire, amount of dividend, bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....end which is received from the other companies after deduction which has to be taken into consideration or the gross dividend. An identical question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. [1990] 182 ITR 396. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 I....