<?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 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71477</link>
    <description>A bad and doubtful debt fund maintained through periodic ad hoc transfers, without earmarking against specific debts, was treated as a reserve rather than a provision for surtax computation, and was therefore includible in capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The fund&#039;s character as a banking reserve, supported by the practice of writing off actual bad debts directly to profit and loss account, defeated the revenue&#039;s contrary classification. Rectification under section 13 was also invalid because the reserve-versus-provision issue was not a patent mistake apparent from the record; once the fund was held to be a reserve on its legal and factual character, there was no basis for rectification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:53:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71477</link>
      <description>A bad and doubtful debt fund maintained through periodic ad hoc transfers, without earmarking against specific debts, was treated as a reserve rather than a provision for surtax computation, and was therefore includible in capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The fund&#039;s character as a banking reserve, supported by the practice of writing off actual bad debts directly to profit and loss account, defeated the revenue&#039;s contrary classification. Rectification under section 13 was also invalid because the reserve-versus-provision issue was not a patent mistake apparent from the record; once the fund was held to be a reserve on its legal and factual character, there was no basis for rectification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>