TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls relates to the construction of the proviso to rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. It may be mentioned that the provision contained in the proviso to rule 1(v) therein has been omitted from April 1, 1977. This question therefore is not of any practical significance at this stage. The High Court (see [1977] 108 ITR 181) has taken the view that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt falls beyond the period of seven years counting from the date of the first advance under the agreement, the loan would qualify for inclusion in the capital. In the instant case, the first advance of Rs. 10 lakhs under the agreement was paid in the month of July, 1961. The second amount was paid some time in the month of September, 1961. That too was of Rs. 10 lakhs. These two items aggregating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the subsequent correspondence between the parties which resulted in the modification of the agreement does not suffer from any infirmity in the present case to require us to take a different view. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court's answer to the questions of law referred to it for decision do not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
