1999 PLP 1810 (PTD)
MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1810 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 227 I T R 633 |
| Bench Members | M. Srinivasan C.J. and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J |
| Parties | MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1810 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1810 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 227 I T R 633 bench comprising: M. Srinivasan C.J. and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1810 (PTD) (MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Surtax
Surtax paid under Indian Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
Not allowable deduction in computing total income. The surtax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. Smith Kiline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC) fol A. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. C.LT. (1986) 159 ITR 431 (Ker.) and Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 453 (Gau.) ref. K.D. Sood for the Assessee. Inder Singh for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.
The question referred to this Court is:-- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable of the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the corresponding surtax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income ?" The Supreme Court has now held in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 that the said payment cannot be allowed as deduction in computing the total income for the corresponding year. While doing so, the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Kerala Court in A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 431 (FB) and reversed the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v CIT (1989) 178 ITR
453. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court this question is no longer available for discussion in this Court. Hence, the reference is answered by holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the corresponding surtax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income. Reference is ordered accordingly M.B.A./2007/FC Order accordingly