Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2005 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (3) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCompanies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - "Whether the Tribunal is justified in view of the provisions of rule 1A of the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act in holding that in order to arrive at the capital base provision of taxation to be taken is not the provision at the end of the year but as it stood at the first day of the commencement of the accounting period?" - As the provision made for taxation and actual assessment bear a close proximity and further if the actual amount of surtax was to be taken into consideration, the language of rule 1A ought to have been "the amount of actual liability" and not a "provision". Mentioning the word "provision" itself connotes that it is a liability which is to be incurred in future. By no stretch of imagination can making a provision of a future liability towards tax be equated with the actual amount of tax assessed. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in taking the provision of Rs. 6,00,000 towards tax liability made on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
|