<?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>1981 (9) TMI 26 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28956</link>
    <description>Amounts credited in accounts were classified for capital computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act by their true commercial character. The profit and loss account surplus was treated as a provision, not a reserve, and the provision for taxation was likewise excluded from reserve treatment. By contrast, the gratuity provision was treated as a reserve because the ad hoc additions were not tied to a contemporaneous liability, and the excess in the development rebate reserve was also treated as a reserve under the applicable CBDT circular and the authority applied. The reference was thus split, with two issues decided against the assessee and two in its favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:37:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 26 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28956</link>
      <description>Amounts credited in accounts were classified for capital computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act by their true commercial character. The profit and loss account surplus was treated as a provision, not a reserve, and the provision for taxation was likewise excluded from reserve treatment. By contrast, the gratuity provision was treated as a reserve because the ad hoc additions were not tied to a contemporaneous liability, and the excess in the development rebate reserve was also treated as a reserve under the applicable CBDT circular and the authority applied. The reference was thus split, with two issues decided against the assessee and two in its favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>