COMMR OF INC TAX CENTRAL BOMBAY Vs. UNITED GENERAL TRUST PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in respect of which rule has been obtained by the CIT runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1973]90ITR348(Bom) to the assessment year in question without considering the effect of the amendment operative from April 1, 1968, and in thus holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under section 80M on the gross dividend before deduction of the proportionate management expense ?'

(2.) IN our view, the question as framed does not really arise out of the Tribunal's order since the only question which was agitated before the Tribunal was whether the deduction under s. 80M of the Act was to be computed with reference to the gross dividend income without deducting therefrom the proportionate management expenses and the Tribunal, relying on the decision of this court in Sahu Brothers (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. ?) and in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1973]90ITR348(Bom) , held that the relief under s. 80M was to be computed with reference to the gross dividend income. It appears clear that the aforesaid question seems to be finally concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. : [1966]59ITR763(SC) as also the decision in CIT v. Industrial Investment Trust Co. Ltd. : [1968]67ITR436(Bom) .

(3.) IN view of this position, which has been clarified we do not think that the deletion or the omission of the words 'received by it' from s. 80M will have the effect as suggested by Mr. Joshi.