TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31, 1963. The assessee had declared a dividend of Rs. 5,625 in the said year. The Income-tax Officer computed the total assessable income of the assessee in the said assessment year to be Rs. 1,93,835. He found that after deduction from the said total income the assessed tax and donation under section 88 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there was a distributable surplus in the hands of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclare 60% of the surplus as dividend which the assessee had failed to do. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, imposed an additional super-tax at the rate of 37% on the distributable income, namely, Rs. 76,783, as reduced by the dividend declared. Such additional super-tax was assessed at Rs. 26,328.46. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following a decision of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account to be added back to its profit. The Tribunal also held that donation of Rs. 1,001 should be deducted from the assessee's total income as also the tax payable being Rs. 52,569. The available surplus according to the Tribunal was computed at only Rs. 20,977. The Tribunal found that to ascertain the commercial profits, many other additions made to the total income by the Income-tax Officer wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring our interference with the conclusion of the Tribunal. The calculation on the basis of which the Tribunal has proceeded has not been specifically challenged and stands admitted. The law on the controversy stands well settled by several decisions of this court including the following: (a) CIT v. Universal Fertilizer Co. Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 47 (Cal) and (b) Shib Banerji properties Constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
