<?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>1985 (10) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26392</link>
    <description>For valuing unquoted equity shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, advance tax paid by the company, though excluded from the asset side of the balance-sheet, must also reduce the related provision for taxation on the liability side. The provision for taxation is to be treated only as the net tax liability after adjusting advance tax already paid, so that the break-up value is not distorted. A reading that leaves the liability unadjusted was rejected as inconsistent with the rule&#039;s balance-sheet method. The construction accepted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was followed, and the contrary Gujarat view was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:04:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26392</link>
      <description>For valuing unquoted equity shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, advance tax paid by the company, though excluded from the asset side of the balance-sheet, must also reduce the related provision for taxation on the liability side. The provision for taxation is to be treated only as the net tax liability after adjusting advance tax already paid, so that the break-up value is not distorted. A reading that leaves the liability unadjusted was rejected as inconsistent with the rule&#039;s balance-sheet method. The construction accepted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was followed, and the contrary Gujarat view was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>