<?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>1989 (9) TMI 34 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23551</link>
    <description>For surtax capital computation, an amount qualifies as reserve only if it retains that character under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Applying the Supreme Court ruling in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the dividend reserve was not includible as reserve. The gratuity appropriation was also not wholly includible; the matter was remanded to determine whether it exceeded the actuarially ascertained gratuity liability, in which event only the excess would be treated as reserve and included in capital. The reference was thus answered against the assessee on both questions, subject to that limited remand issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:05:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 34 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23551</link>
      <description>For surtax capital computation, an amount qualifies as reserve only if it retains that character under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Applying the Supreme Court ruling in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the dividend reserve was not includible as reserve. The gratuity appropriation was also not wholly includible; the matter was remanded to determine whether it exceeded the actuarially ascertained gratuity liability, in which event only the excess would be treated as reserve and included in capital. The reference was thus answered against the assessee on both questions, subject to that limited remand issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>