9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, whereby the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts are in a narrow compass and may be stated as under. The assessee had made investments in shares in industrial as well as non-industrial companies and for that purpose he had borrowed funds. In the assessment year 1972-73, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but, on further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") held that the amount of Rs. 51,612 had been wrongly disallowed and should have been allowed. Since the Tribunal refused to make a reference, the Revenue moved an application in the High Court under section 256(2) for an order directing the Tribunal to ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the High Court has been influenced by the decision of this court in Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243, which decision has subsequently been overruled by this court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120. In the circumstances it is necessary to clarify the position in this regard. Section 80K, since deleted by the Finance Act, 1986, fell i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Rs. 55,197 paid on the borrowings for the investment in shares had first to be deducted out of the dividend income of Rs. 62,160 and the balance amount would have been the income of dividend which could be taken into account for the purpose of deduction under section 80K. In other words, for the purpose of deduction under section 80K the income from dividends had to be taken as Rs. 6,963. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
