1985 (1) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I dt. 21st March, 1983. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows. 2. The assessee is a private company. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 for which the previous year is the calendar ending with 31st Dec., 1979. While computing the chargeable profits at. Rs. 5,25,791 the Surtax Officer deducted Rs. 89,951 as ordained under r. 1(vii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earing the assessee company in the matter, he revised the order of the Surtax Officer and directed by his impugned orders that the Surtax Officer should apply r. 4 of Second Schedule and modify his assessment. He also directed that the Surtax Officer, however, would not enforce the collection of demand till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court on this issue. It is no doubt true that the CIT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... income. Admittedly 80G is a deduction granted under Chapter VIA of the IT Act. Therefore, according to the ruling of the Karnataka High Court, r. 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be made applicable with reference to the deduction of Rs. 89,951 granted as 80G relief to the assessee, though it was deducted from out of the chargeable profits under the First Schedule of the Surtax Act. The ld. departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the CIT should be upheld as it is in consonance with the administrative directions given by the CBDT. Firstly, we hold that as the ratio of the decision of the Karnataka High Court referred to above is against the impugned order of the CIT, it cannot be said that the Surtax Officer's order suffers from any error or acts as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, we hold that the assumpt....