<?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>1984 (2) TMI 43 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27673</link>
    <description>Amounts shown in a reserve for tax contingency were held includible in capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 because they were separately maintained as reserve, not used for tax payment, and later transferred to general reserve; alternatively, any excess over the amount reasonably required for tax liability had to be treated as reserve and counted in capital. The sum of Rs. 9,16,285 was not excluded from chargeable profits for the relevant year, the point being governed by earlier Division Bench authority. The reference was answered accordingly, in favour of the assessee on the capital issue and against it on the profits issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:56:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (2) TMI 43 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27673</link>
      <description>Amounts shown in a reserve for tax contingency were held includible in capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 because they were separately maintained as reserve, not used for tax payment, and later transferred to general reserve; alternatively, any excess over the amount reasonably required for tax liability had to be treated as reserve and counted in capital. The sum of Rs. 9,16,285 was not excluded from chargeable profits for the relevant year, the point being governed by earlier Division Bench authority. The reference was answered accordingly, in favour of the assessee on the capital issue and against it on the profits issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>