https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14894 Provision for taxation could not be deducted from the cost of investments while computing capital base under rule 2 of the Second Schedule, because it was not a surplus fund eligible for such reduction. The Madras High Court noted that the earlier Calcutta High Court view supporting the assessee had already been reversed by the Supreme Court on the same legal question, and the Tribunal erred in relying on the overruled precedent. The issue was therefore resolved against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:19:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14894 Provision for taxation could not be deducted from the cost of investments while computing capital base under rule 2 of the Second Schedule, because it was not a surplus fund eligible for such reduction. The Madras High Court noted that the earlier Calcutta High Court view supporting the assessee had already been reversed by the Supreme Court on the same legal question, and the Tribunal erred in relying on the overruled precedent. The issue was therefore resolved against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14894