<?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>1961 (4) TMI 102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185138</link>
    <description>A depreciation fund was held not to be a reserve representing accumulations of past profits under the first proviso to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The proviso applies only to reserves in the balance-sheet that are accumulated profits capable of being brought within section 23A. Depreciation is a charge made in computing commercial profits and reflects estimated asset wear and tear, not profits set apart after ascertainment. On the facts, the fund arose from yearly depreciation entries, the assets remained shown at cost, and there was no evidence of excess depreciation being appropriated out of profits. The answer was therefore in the negative, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:45:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185138</link>
      <description>A depreciation fund was held not to be a reserve representing accumulations of past profits under the first proviso to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The proviso applies only to reserves in the balance-sheet that are accumulated profits capable of being brought within section 23A. Depreciation is a charge made in computing commercial profits and reflects estimated asset wear and tear, not profits set apart after ascertainment. On the facts, the fund arose from yearly depreciation entries, the assets remained shown at cost, and there was no evidence of excess depreciation being appropriated out of profits. The answer was therefore in the negative, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>