https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57716 Revision under section 16(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was not justified because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Karnataka High Court's construction of rule 4 of the Second Schedule meant that deductions such as section 80G relief under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 do not require proportionate reduction of capital. As the Surtax Officer had assessed the matter on that basis, the original order could not be revised. The further direction to keep collection in abeyance also failed for want of any specific CBDT instruction. The assessee succeeded and the assessment was restored. en-us Sat, 19 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:24:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57716 Revision under section 16(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was not justified because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Karnataka High Court's construction of rule 4 of the Second Schedule meant that deductions such as section 80G relief under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 do not require proportionate reduction of capital. As the Surtax Officer had assessed the matter on that basis, the original order could not be revised. The further direction to keep collection in abeyance also failed for want of any specific CBDT instruction. The assessee succeeded and the assessment was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 19 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57716