https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40184 Subsequent correspondence modified the original repayment arrangement for the loan, extending repayment beyond seven years from the first advance under the agreement. On that factual basis, the loan did not fall within the proviso to rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Supreme Court accepted the High Court's reasoning that the later correspondence effected a genuine modification of the agreement, so the proviso was not attracted and the loan remained outside its scope. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40184 Subsequent correspondence modified the original repayment arrangement for the loan, extending repayment beyond seven years from the first advance under the agreement. On that factual basis, the loan did not fall within the proviso to rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Supreme Court accepted the High Court's reasoning that the later correspondence effected a genuine modification of the agreement, so the proviso was not attracted and the loan remained outside its scope. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40184