<?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>1995 (12) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18266</link>
    <description>Under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, a reserve created by revaluing assets and retrospectively recomputing depreciation was excluded from capital because the statute expressly bars reserves brought into existence by revaluation of book assets. The Court treated &quot;book assets&quot; in its ordinary statutory sense and held that clear taxing language could not be displaced by beneficial interpretation. On the further question, the amount of general reserves identified by the Court was also excluded from capital computation in line with the binding precedent relied upon. The referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:29:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18266</link>
      <description>Under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, a reserve created by revaluing assets and retrospectively recomputing depreciation was excluded from capital because the statute expressly bars reserves brought into existence by revaluation of book assets. The Court treated &quot;book assets&quot; in its ordinary statutory sense and held that clear taxing language could not be displaced by beneficial interpretation. On the further question, the amount of general reserves identified by the Court was also excluded from capital computation in line with the binding precedent relied upon. The referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>