<?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>1991 (7) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21917</link>
    <description>While valuing unquoted equity shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, advance tax paid could not be treated as a liability by adjusting the provision for taxation. Explanation II(i)(a) expressly directs that advance tax paid under the relevant income-tax provisions shall not be treated as an asset, and Explanation II(ii)(e), which excludes only the excess provision for taxation other than that amount, must be read harmoniously with it so that each clause has effect. The rules form part of the statutory code and must be construed to give effect to every part of the scheme. On that construction, the contrary approach was rejected and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21917</link>
      <description>While valuing unquoted equity shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, advance tax paid could not be treated as a liability by adjusting the provision for taxation. Explanation II(i)(a) expressly directs that advance tax paid under the relevant income-tax provisions shall not be treated as an asset, and Explanation II(ii)(e), which excludes only the excess provision for taxation other than that amount, must be read harmoniously with it so that each clause has effect. The rules form part of the statutory code and must be construed to give effect to every part of the scheme. On that construction, the contrary approach was rejected and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>