Skip to content


Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 347 of 1980
Judge
Reported in[1986]161ITR301(Cal)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80AA and 80M
AppellantCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateManisha Seal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.C. Prosad, Adv.
Cases ReferredDistributors (Baroda) Private Ltd. v. Union of India (sincereported
Excerpt:
- .....tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under section 80m was to be allowed on the net dividend income as per the computations of sections 56 and 57 of the income-tax act and not on the gross dividend ?'2. in view of the provisions contained in section 80aa of the income-tax act, 1961, inserted by the finance (no. 2) act, 1980, with retrospective effect from april 1, 1968, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour the revenue.3. miss seal has drawn our attention to a news item published in [1981] 130 itr 7 to the effect that in the writ petition (w.p. no. 2043 of 1981) filed by distributors (baroda) private ltd. v. union of india (sincereported in : [1985]155itr120(sc) ), challenging the validity of section 80aa, rule nisi was issued and stay was also.....
Judgment:

Ajit K. Sengupta, J.

1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80M was to be allowed on the net dividend income as per the computations of Sections 56 and 57 of the Income-tax Act and not on the gross dividend ?'

2. In view of the provisions contained in Section 80AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour the Revenue.

3. Miss Seal has drawn our attention to a news item published in [1981] 130 ITR 7 to the effect that in the writ petition (W.P. No. 2043 of 1981) filed by Distributors (Baroda) Private Ltd. v. Union of India (sincereported in : [1985]155ITR120(SC) ), challenging the validity of Section 80AA, rule nisi was issued and stay was also granted by the Supreme Court. Miss Seal submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case may ultimately govern the question. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, in disposing of this case conformably to this judgment, will be at liberty to consider if any decision is rendered in the meanwhile by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

4. There will be no order as to costs.

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //