TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (5) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reduction. For the assessment year 1983-84, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1983, a similar reduction of Rs. 7,871 was made. However, in the note at the bottom of the assessment order it was mentioned, " (X) Capital computed is reduced by excess depreciation allowed in earlier years applying Rule 1(3) of the II Schedule as clarified by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 215." 3. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the Bombay High Court, cited above, and confirmed the reduction in the capital base. 4. In the further appeals before us it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the decision of the Bombay High Court could not be applied to the facts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On a reading of the decision of the Bombay High Court, we find that the facts given there do not take specifically that such a finding was given in that case for, there also it was stated that out of surplus profits a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 was transferred to the general reserves meaning thereby that there was a balance which had been appropriated for other purposes. Since the facts in the present case appear to be identical with the facts of Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd., the assessee is unable to avoid the decision of that decision. 6. The second point made by the assessee is that the difference between the depreciation actually allowed and the provision made for income-tax purposes referred to the earlier years and unless the capital of the ear....