<?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>1980 (5) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36010</link>
    <description>Amounts set aside against future contingencies, without an existing or ascertained liability, are treated as reserves rather than provisions for capital computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. On that approach, a reserve for depreciation on investments was regarded as part of the company&#039;s capital structure because no actual depreciation or present liability was shown, and a reserve for doubtful debts was also treated as a reserve where the amount retained exceeded the identifiable doubtful debts and was not linked to a known liability. The operative distinction is between a provision for accrued liability and an amount kept apart for future use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:52:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (5) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36010</link>
      <description>Amounts set aside against future contingencies, without an existing or ascertained liability, are treated as reserves rather than provisions for capital computation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. On that approach, a reserve for depreciation on investments was regarded as part of the company&#039;s capital structure because no actual depreciation or present liability was shown, and a reserve for doubtful debts was also treated as a reserve where the amount retained exceeded the identifiable doubtful debts and was not linked to a known liability. The operative distinction is between a provision for accrued liability and an amount kept apart for future use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>