<?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>1993 (2) TMI 135 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60874</link>
    <description>For surtax computation under the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964, bonus shares issued by capitalising general reserves did not create a net increase in capital under rule 3 because the rise in share capital was matched by an equal reduction in reserves. The computation had to follow the actual book entries and the timing of the transactions, so later transfers from the profit and loss account could not be treated as the source of the bonus issue. The assessee&#039;s authorities under a different statutory scheme were inapplicable. The Tribunal therefore held that the proportionate amount was not includible as increased capital and rejected the alternative plea.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 13:58:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 135 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60874</link>
      <description>For surtax computation under the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964, bonus shares issued by capitalising general reserves did not create a net increase in capital under rule 3 because the rise in share capital was matched by an equal reduction in reserves. The computation had to follow the actual book entries and the timing of the transactions, so later transfers from the profit and loss account could not be treated as the source of the bonus issue. The assessee&#039;s authorities under a different statutory scheme were inapplicable. The Tribunal therefore held that the proportionate amount was not includible as increased capital and rejected the alternative plea.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>