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 amount set apart by the assessee for contingent tax liability under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was a provision or a reserve for inclusion in capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.
Analysis: The governing distinction in commercial accountancy is that a provision is a charge against profits made for anticipated liabilities or contingencies, while a reserve is an appropriation of profits retained as part of the capital employed in the business. The assessee had set apart the amount to meet a possible tax liability arising from proceedings under section 23A, and the amount was treated by the assessee itself as a provision in its books. On that basis, and applying the settled test, the amount could not be treated as a reserve merely because no final order of levy had been made by the relevant date.
Conclusion: The amount was a provision and not a reserve, and was therefore not includible in the assessee's capital.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the Revenue's view that the disputed amount did not form part of the capital base was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Amounts set apart in respect of an anticipated tax liability are provisions, not reserves, where they are charged against profits and are intended to meet a contingent obligation rather than to remain part of the capital employed.