<?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>1992 (11) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40162</link>
    <description>For surtax computation under Rule 1 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, a provision for gratuity was held not to form part of the assessee-company&#039;s capital. The Court treated the issue as governed by its earlier decision on the same point and applied that precedent to exclude the gratuity provision from the capital base. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40162</link>
      <description>For surtax computation under Rule 1 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, a provision for gratuity was held not to form part of the assessee-company&#039;s capital. The Court treated the issue as governed by its earlier decision on the same point and applied that precedent to exclude the gratuity provision from the capital base. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>