<?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 (10) TMI 15 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29025</link>
    <description>Capitalisation of reserves by issue of bonus shares did not amount to a fresh increase in capital for rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, because no new funds entered the company and the transaction was only an internal reclassification; that issue was decided for the Revenue. Provision for proposed dividends was not a reserve for capital computation under the Surtax Act, following binding precedent, and that issue also went to the Revenue. By contrast, deductions or rebates under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were treated as part of total income for the rule 4 computation, so capital was not required to be reduced on the Revenue&#039;s contention; that issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:44:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (10) TMI 15 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29025</link>
      <description>Capitalisation of reserves by issue of bonus shares did not amount to a fresh increase in capital for rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, because no new funds entered the company and the transaction was only an internal reclassification; that issue was decided for the Revenue. Provision for proposed dividends was not a reserve for capital computation under the Surtax Act, following binding precedent, and that issue also went to the Revenue. By contrast, deductions or rebates under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were treated as part of total income for the rule 4 computation, so capital was not required to be reduced on the Revenue&#039;s contention; that issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>