https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20119 Chapter VI-A deductions were treated as requiring proportionate reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, following the binding Supreme Court position, so the point went against the Revenue. Terminal allowance under section 32(1)(iii) was treated as depreciation already reflected in income-tax assessment and was held includible in chargeable profits for surtax; it was not equated with the excluded profit under section 41(2), so the Revenue's exclusion argument also failed. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:25:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20119 Chapter VI-A deductions were treated as requiring proportionate reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, following the binding Supreme Court position, so the point went against the Revenue. Terminal allowance under section 32(1)(iii) was treated as depreciation already reflected in income-tax assessment and was held includible in chargeable profits for surtax; it was not equated with the excluded profit under section 41(2), so the Revenue's exclusion argument also failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20119