<?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>1992 (8) TMI 154 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71459</link>
    <description>For surtax capital computation, the shortfall between depreciation actually allowed under the Income-tax Act and depreciation provided in the books had to be deducted from general reserves, because the relevant rule required reserves to be reduced by amounts allowed as deductions in computing income. The Tribunal also held that where assessed tax liability exceeded the provision made in the books, the capital base had to be reduced by the excess, since a tax provision is contingent until final quantification and any shortfall affects the reserve computation. The reduction of capital on both counts was upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:12:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 154 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71459</link>
      <description>For surtax capital computation, the shortfall between depreciation actually allowed under the Income-tax Act and depreciation provided in the books had to be deducted from general reserves, because the relevant rule required reserves to be reduced by amounts allowed as deductions in computing income. The Tribunal also held that where assessed tax liability exceeded the provision made in the books, the capital base had to be reduced by the excess, since a tax provision is contingent until final quantification and any shortfall affects the reserve computation. The reduction of capital on both counts was upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>