<?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>1987 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25695</link>
    <description>While valuing unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, the provision for taxation in the balance-sheet was held not to be reduced by advance tax already paid. Explanation II(ii)(e) excludes provision for taxation only to the extent it exceeds the tax payable with reference to book profits, and Explanation II(i)(a) treats advance tax paid as an asset, supporting a gross tax-liability approach rather than netting off advance tax again. The court preferred this construction over the interpretation used in section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act and answered the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:18:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25695</link>
      <description>While valuing unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, the provision for taxation in the balance-sheet was held not to be reduced by advance tax already paid. Explanation II(ii)(e) excludes provision for taxation only to the extent it exceeds the tax payable with reference to book profits, and Explanation II(i)(a) treats advance tax paid as an asset, supporting a gross tax-liability approach rather than netting off advance tax again. The court preferred this construction over the interpretation used in section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act and answered the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>