https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12585 Excess depreciation allowed in income-tax assessment could not be reduced from the company's capital base under rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 unless there was an actual reserve credited in the books. The Madras HC held that the provision applies only where an identifiable reserve, such as a general or special reserve, contains the differential amount taken into account for surtax purposes. On the facts, there was no separate depreciation reserve, no finding of a credit to general reserve, and the assessing authority relied on a notional reserve not supported by the books or profit and loss account. Mere difference between tax depreciation and book depreciation was insufficient. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2009 13:12:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12585 Excess depreciation allowed in income-tax assessment could not be reduced from the company's capital base under rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 unless there was an actual reserve credited in the books. The Madras HC held that the provision applies only where an identifiable reserve, such as a general or special reserve, contains the differential amount taken into account for surtax purposes. On the facts, there was no separate depreciation reserve, no finding of a credit to general reserve, and the assessing authority relied on a notional reserve not supported by the books or profit and loss account. Mere difference between tax depreciation and book depreciation was insufficient. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12585