https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23183 Relief under section 80-I did not require any reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, so that allowance was excluded from the capital-reduction exercise. Proposed dividends payable out of general reserve, however, had to be deducted from that reserve for capital computation, which affected the working of surtax capital on that point. The reference was disposed of by applying binding precedent on the first issue and Supreme Court authority on the second, with the first question answered for the assessee and the second for the Revenue. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:45:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23183 Relief under section 80-I did not require any reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, so that allowance was excluded from the capital-reduction exercise. Proposed dividends payable out of general reserve, however, had to be deducted from that reserve for capital computation, which affected the working of surtax capital on that point. The reference was disposed of by applying binding precedent on the first issue and Supreme Court authority on the second, with the first question answered for the assessee and the second for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23183