<?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>2005 (9) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40373</link>
    <description>A capital reserve arising on takeover, where the consideration paid for the undertakings was less than the net value of the real and tangible assets and liabilities acquired as a going concern, was not excluded by Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The exclusion applies only to a paid-up share capital or reserve created by revaluation or by creating or increasing a book asset. As no book asset was created or increased by revaluation, the reserve remained includible in the company&#039;s capital for surtax computation, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40373</link>
      <description>A capital reserve arising on takeover, where the consideration paid for the undertakings was less than the net value of the real and tangible assets and liabilities acquired as a going concern, was not excluded by Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The exclusion applies only to a paid-up share capital or reserve created by revaluation or by creating or increasing a book asset. As no book asset was created or increased by revaluation, the reserve remained includible in the company&#039;s capital for surtax computation, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>