TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to carry forward the unallowed deduction under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the next assessment year in view of the provisions of section 80A(2), read with section 80B(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. The facts, inter alia, as appear from the statement of case are that the assessee-company was engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities, etc., and claimed deduction under section 80M of the Act on the gross dividend of ₹ 2,51,550 and ₹ 3,10,700 on the shares held by it respectively for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. In the course of assessment the ITO held that the part of the expenditure made by the assessee-company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to recompute the unabsorbed deduction under section 80M to be carried forward for each of the two years, in accordance with law. 4. The revenue was not satisfied with the said direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, hence, came up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) appeared to be correct and no interference was called for. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals. 5. The instant reference has been made at the instance of the revenue against the said decision of the Tribunal. 6. Mr. A.C. Maitra, the learned Advocate for the revenue, referred to section 14 of the Act which provides that: 14. Heads of income.-Save as otherwise provided by this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be assessed under section 56 and as soon as it can be held that income from dividend is under section 56 of the Act, the principles of section 57 shall apply, section 57(1) states in the case of dividends, a reasonable sum for the purpose of realising dividend on behalf of the assessee is to be allowed as a deduction. In the absence of details, 5 per cent of gross dividend has been deducted as expenses relating to earning of dividend. It has not been disputed by the assessee that deduction of 5 per cent of gross dividend relating to earning of dividend is unjust. The learned Advocate also relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Chugandas Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC) and wherein it was held that ... the heads do not exh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. 10. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Distributors Baroda (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC) as well as the provisions of section 80A(2), read with section 80B(5), of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, [1986] 159 ITR 314 (Cal.) and CIT v. Supreme Credit Corpn. (P.) Ltd [1986] 162 ITR 880 . But the view taken by this Court, inter alia, in New India Investment Corpn. Ltd.'s case (supra) is not in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors Baroda (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) or the provisions of section 80A(2), read with section 80B(5) because in the type of cases like the one before us the dividend income as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
