https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26457 A deduction under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act did not justify proportional reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, because that statutory reduction was not attracted merely by the allowance of the deduction. The amount credited as tax equalisation reserve was, on the facts found, more than reasonably necessary to meet the existing tax liability and therefore had the character of a reserve rather than a provision; it was includible in capital computation. The assessee succeeded on both points decided, while the separate question on doubtful debts and advances was remitted for fresh determination. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:52:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26457 A deduction under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act did not justify proportional reduction of capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, because that statutory reduction was not attracted merely by the allowance of the deduction. The amount credited as tax equalisation reserve was, on the facts found, more than reasonably necessary to meet the existing tax liability and therefore had the character of a reserve rather than a provision; it was includible in capital computation. The assessee succeeded on both points decided, while the separate question on doubtful debts and advances was remitted for fresh determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26457