TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (7) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of law has been referred to this court under section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 13 of the said Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal assessment. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, he cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer made under section 13. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Departmental representative submitted that in the original assessment, the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was wrongly included in the capital base and that that was an o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose of capital computation. The contention of the assessee was that the bonus shares amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs were issued by writing up the fixed assets in 1948 and in 1961 those assets were written down from the general reserve and other reserves and the result was that the reserves came down by the said amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. Thus, materially, there was no writing up of the fixed assets in t....