Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (4) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Corporation (Agencies) Limited, Madras, is the assessee. The assessment year is 1981-82 for which the accounting period ended March 31, 1981. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings placing implicit reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 302 contended that the provisions for taxation amounting to Rs. 57....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax (Appeals) was based on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 302. It is on these facts, the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue referred the common question as below under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee and against the Revenue by the Calcutta High Court, holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the provision for taxation from its cost of investments in terms of clause (ii) of rule 2 of Schedule II. While so holding their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court followed an earlier decision of the said court in the case of the same assessee in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v.....