1998 (3) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The notice has been sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Special Range). On the basis of the returns filed by the company, an order came to be passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (Assessment), Range II, Madras-34, dated April 16, 1987, wherein the deduction of Rs. 1,16,16,134 was shown relying on rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce, whereby, it is suggested that the written down value as per the books as on October 1, 1982 was Rs. 10,00,33,000 while the written down value of the assets as per the assessment as on October 1, 1982, was Rs. 6,21,85,351 the difference being Rs. 3,78,47,649. This amount should have been deducted from the capital base instead of Rs. 1,16,16,134 which was deducted in the assessment. The authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itself would not apply on a correct interpretation of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, however, strenuously contends that the formula shown is on the basis of the books of account of the company and its balance-sheet. According to learned counsel, even if full effect is to be given to the aforementioned Bombay High Court rulin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o point in going into the correctness or otherwise of the notice at this stage, because that would be the task of the concerned authority. However, it is clarified that it is open to the petitioner to approach the said authority and canvass the contention that the difference in the depreciation values which would be referable to rule 1, sub-rule (iii), of the Second Schedule to the Act would be fo....