https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40161 Under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, omission to consider the Explanation to rule 1 of the Second Schedule was treated as an error apparent from the record, so rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order was upheld. For capital computation, amounts set apart for contingent liabilities, proposed dividend, profit-sharing bonus and pension scheme were treated as provisions, not reserves, because they reflected liabilities or appropriations for known obligations rather than free reserves. The excess credited to the depreciation fund over depreciation actually allowed was treated as a reserve and included in capital. The Supreme Court thus accepted the distinction between provisions and reserves for surtax purposes. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40161 Under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, omission to consider the Explanation to rule 1 of the Second Schedule was treated as an error apparent from the record, so rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order was upheld. For capital computation, amounts set apart for contingent liabilities, proposed dividend, profit-sharing bonus and pension scheme were treated as provisions, not reserves, because they reflected liabilities or appropriations for known obligations rather than free reserves. The excess credited to the depreciation fund over depreciation actually allowed was treated as a reserve and included in capital. The Supreme Court thus accepted the distinction between provisions and reserves for surtax purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40161