<?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>1988 (12) TMI 36 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23434</link>
    <description>A proposed dividend reserve does not qualify as &quot;other reserves&quot; for the statutory computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Applying the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of that expression, the Bombay HC answered the issue in the negative and treated the proposed dividend reserve as outside the reserve base used for the computation, thereby favouring the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:47:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 36 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23434</link>
      <description>A proposed dividend reserve does not qualify as &quot;other reserves&quot; for the statutory computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Applying the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of that expression, the Bombay HC answered the issue in the negative and treated the proposed dividend reserve as outside the reserve base used for the computation, thereby favouring the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>