<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (12) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69106</link>
    <description>Amounts set apart to the Ramaraju Memorial Fund, shown in the balance-sheet under &quot;Current Liabilities and Provisions&quot;, were not a reserve for surtax capital computation because the Second Schedule excludes sums so classified and the amounts were held under a binding obligation rather than as shareholders&#039; funds. The issue was decided against the assessee. Deduction allowed under section 80G did not require any proportionate reduction in capital base under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule, following Supreme Court authority approving the jurisdictional High Court view. That issue was decided against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:13:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69106</link>
      <description>Amounts set apart to the Ramaraju Memorial Fund, shown in the balance-sheet under &quot;Current Liabilities and Provisions&quot;, were not a reserve for surtax capital computation because the Second Schedule excludes sums so classified and the amounts were held under a binding obligation rather than as shareholders&#039; funds. The issue was decided against the assessee. Deduction allowed under section 80G did not require any proportionate reduction in capital base under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule, following Supreme Court authority approving the jurisdictional High Court view. That issue was decided against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>