Law:

Section:

Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 80B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital - Computation of - Assessment years 1970-71 and 1973-74 - Whether amounts being deduction admissible as donation under section 80G would not fall for deduction under rule 4 for computing capital under Second Schedule to Surtax Act - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal held that the amounts being the deduction admissible as donation under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be considered as sum 'not includible' in income for income-tax assessment and, therefore, would not fall for deduction under rule 4 for computing the capital under the Second Schedule to the Act. HELD Following the decision in the case of CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. [1989] 44 Taxman 77 (Punj. & Har), where it was held that the assessee was entitled to proportionate deductions, the Tribunal, in the instant case, was justified in its findings. CASE REVIEW CIT v. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 694 (Ker.), CIT v. Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 359 (Ker.) and CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (No.1) [1989] (1989) 178 ITR 173 (Punj. & Har.)followed and relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Premier Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 694 (Ker.), CIT v. Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 359 (Ker.) and CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries ( P.) Ltd.[1989] 44 Taxman 77 (Punj. & Har.) Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Applicant. Bhagirath Dass and Ramesh Kumar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Sodhi, J. - The question of law referred here reads…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492