Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Dalmia Ceramic Ind. Ltd.

Commissioner of Surtax vs Dalmia Ceramic Ind. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710192

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
Surtax Reference No. 6 of 1984 23 August 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Surtax

Advocate Sanjeev Khanna and; Ajay Jha, for the Revenue,; Ms. Radha R

Respondent

Dalmia Ceramic Ind. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]119TAXMAN479(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - arijit pasayat, c.j. heard.following questions have been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by the tribunal, delhi bench 'c' :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the capital employed was not to be proportionately reduced by rs. 2,111 under rule 4 of the second schedule to the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the deductible amount of income-tax on the dividend income was to be determined with reference to the net dividend income (after relief under section 80m) and not on the gross dividend income ?'the dispute relates to assessment year 1976-77.2. considering the answer given in respect of similar questions in it reference no. 329 of 1979, disposed of on 6-9-2000 and it reference no. 99 of 1980, disposed of on 2-11-2000, we answer the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. so far as the second question is concerned, the same is answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.the application is disposed of.

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Heard.

Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the capital employed was not to be proportionately reduced by Rs. 2,111 under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the deductible amount of income-tax on the dividend income was to be determined with reference to the net dividend income (after relief under section 80M) and not on the gross dividend income ?'

The dispute relates to assessment year 1976-77.

2. Considering the answer given in respect of similar questions in IT Reference No. 329 of 1979, disposed of on 6-9-2000 and IT Reference No. 99 of 1980, disposed of on 2-11-2000, we answer the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, the same is answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.

The application is disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial