<?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>1996 (4) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18419</link>
    <description>Borrowed funds found by the Tribunal to have been used for creation of capital assets were properly included in the surtax computation under the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. That factual finding governed the reference and supported the assessee&#039;s position, so the appellate allowance of the claim was confirmed. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18419</link>
      <description>Borrowed funds found by the Tribunal to have been used for creation of capital assets were properly included in the surtax computation under the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. That factual finding governed the reference and supported the assessee&#039;s position, so the appellate allowance of the claim was confirmed. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>