<?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>1998 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16479</link>
    <description>A retained premium under a reinsurance arrangement is not a &quot;fund&quot; for capital computation under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, because the decisive test is ownership of the amount. The assessee merely withheld part of the premium otherwise payable to the foreign reinsurer, with the balance remaining payable with interest under the contract. That arrangement was a deferred premium payment mechanism, not a lending or borrowing transaction. On that basis, the premium reserve deposit account could not be included as a fund, and the Revenue&#039;s view prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:13:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16479</link>
      <description>A retained premium under a reinsurance arrangement is not a &quot;fund&quot; for capital computation under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, because the decisive test is ownership of the amount. The assessee merely withheld part of the premium otherwise payable to the foreign reinsurer, with the balance remaining payable with interest under the contract. That arrangement was a deferred premium payment mechanism, not a lending or borrowing transaction. On that basis, the premium reserve deposit account could not be included as a fund, and the Revenue&#039;s view prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>