Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the gratuity reserve amount was includible in the computation of capital employed for surtax purposes under the relevant schedule.
Analysis: The decisive question was whether the amount standing to the gratuity reserve account was a provision for a known or contingent liability, or whether it was an excess appropriation capable of being treated as a reserve. The applicable principle was that an appropriation made on a scientific or actuarial basis towards gratuity liability would ordinarily be a provision, whereas an ad hoc appropriation without such basis, if in excess of the estimated liability, could be regarded as reserve to the extent of the excess. As the record did not disclose whether the appropriation was based on actuarial valuation or was merely ad hoc, the material necessary to apply that principle was absent.
Conclusion: The question was not answered on merits and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of the governing principle.
Ratio Decidendi: For gratuity-related appropriations, the character of the amount depends on whether it is made on a scientific basis to meet an estimated liability or is an excess ad hoc appropriation; only the excess over the estimated liability can be treated as reserve.