TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1964: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Expl. 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 70,33,000 being the adjustment made in respect of the excess depreciation charged in the earlier years could not be treated as part of the capital for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 70,33,000 was shown as adjustment of excess depreciation on buildings, machinery, etc., being the difference between the amount provided and the amount calculated under s. 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, up to 30th June, 1967. The company was claiming depreciation according to the written down value method adopted up to the earlier assessment year. But in this year it changed the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the interests of the revenue. He directed the ITO to modify the assessment by excluding Rs. 70,33,000 from the computation of the capital of the company for the purpose of assessment under the Act. The assessee then filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal in view of Expl. 1 to r. 2 of the said Schedule to the Act. The material portion of the Explanation reads as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
