9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ", has referred for the opinion of the High Court the following questions under the provisions of section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reserves was required to be deducted to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account by the higher amount of depreciation, which had been allowed to the assessee under the prescribed rules. The Surtax Officer was of the view that the difference between the depreciation actually allowed in the income-tax assessments and the depreciation as provided amounting to Rs. 40,94,438 had resulted in excess reserves of the same amount which could not be taken into account for making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excess is to be deducted from the general reserves for the purpose of including the reserves in computing the capital for the purposes of surtax. The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court is affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Zenith Ltd. In this view of the matter, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Regarding questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital and not out of the profits, which could have the effect of reducing the capital. Since the assessee had failed to furnish any figures which would show that the distributable profits of the company would have been much less than the amount of dividends actually declared in various years, if appropriate provisions towards depreciation allowable under the Rules had been made, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
