9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment year is 1981-82 for which the accounting period ended March 31, 1981. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings placing implicit reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 302 contended that the provisions for taxation amounting to Rs. 57,86,074 should be deducted from the cost of investments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 302. It is on these facts, the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue referred the common question as below under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for taxation amounting to Rs. 57,86, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the provision for taxation from its cost of investments in terms of clause (ii) of rule 2 of Schedule II. While so holding their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court followed an earlier decision of the said court in the case of the same assessee in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 885. The case in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which followed the decision in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 885 (Cal). We, therefore, answer the common question that the provision for taxation amounting to Rs. 57,86,074 cannot at all be deducted from the cost of the investments to be reduced from the capital base under rule 2 of the Second Schedule. The question is answered accordingly. These tax cases are thus dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
