Law:

Section:

Section 4, read with 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Change of tax - Tribunal held that question whether retained profits could be included in computing capital base was debatable one and as such order of rectification passed under section 13 by lower authority excluding said amount in computing capital base was not valid - Whether Tribunal's order was justified - Held, yes Note : The case was decided against the department. CASE REFERRED TO Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 753 (Bom.) A.N. Bhattacharji for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.-Identical questions came up for consideration before this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is stated by learned advocate for the petitioner that the said application was rejected. Learned advocate however wanted to distinguish this case relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 753, where the Bombay High Court held that the excess in the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492