1985 (10) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to answer the following question of law, namely : - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,38,000 (assessment year 1973-74) and Rs. 2,61,550 (assessment year 1974-75) being provisions for gratuity were a reserve and in directing the Surtax Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n decision of the Bombay High Court The Tribunal has held that these amounts are to be treated as "reserve" in computing the capital base for the purpose of standard deduction. It has, accordingly, made a consequential order, directing the Surtax Officer to proceed on this basis. Aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal, the Revenue applied for reference to this court under section 256(1) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wn by the Supreme Court in this decision, while pointing out the distinction between "provision" and "reserve" for deciding such a question, clearly indicates that on the basis of facts found proved, these amounts can only be treated as "Provision" and not "reserve". The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in treating these amounts as "reserve". The question of considering the justification of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X