1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Supreme Court affirms ruling on Companies Surtax Act proviso construction. Loan inclusion in capital allowed.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the construction of the proviso to rule 1(v) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The ... Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Period Of Not Less Than Seven Years Issues: Construction of proviso to rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.Summary:The Supreme Court addressed the question of the construction of the proviso to rule 1(v) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, which was omitted from April 1, 1977, making the issue of practical significance irrelevant. The High Court had found that there was a modification of the agreement between the parties, resulting in the loan falling outside the purview of the proviso to rule 1(v). The High Court's decision was based on the repayment terms specified in the agreement, where the repayment period extended beyond seven years from the first advance made under the agreement. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the modification of the agreement through subsequent correspondence was valid, and the loan in question qualified for inclusion in the company's capital for surtax purposes. As a result, the appeals were dismissed with no costs incurred.