9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be deducted from the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto ('the tax payable') for the purpose of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the amount representing provision for taxation was in excess and was, consequently, not to be treated as a liability. 3. The learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian, cited before us three rulings, one of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Oswal (Minor) v. CWT [1984] 148 ITR 620, another of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of T.V. Srinivasan v. CWT [1985] 152 ITR 599 and the third one of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CWT v. N. Krishnan [1986] 24 Taxman 269, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal) Rules, 1963 wherein it was laid down that the respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. Elaborating on his arguments, Shri Trivedi submitted that since the challenge to the reopening of the reassessment for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 was not considered or adjudicated upon by the AAC in his order, it should be deemed that this ground was decided against the assessee and on this basis it should be held that since the reopening of the assessment itself was bad for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77, the additions made in the reopened assessment orders could not be sustained. 5. The learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f so, to what extent the amount representing provision for taxation was in excess and was, consequently, not to be treated as a liability in working out the value of unquoted equity shares of companies under rule 1D. On this issue, therefore, the order of the AAC does not appear to be correct and is reversed, while the order of the WTO is restored. 7. We agree with the learned departmental representative, Shri Subramanian, that by the mere fact of the AAC having not considered ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the memorandum of appeal for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77, it cannot be inferred that these grounds of appeal were decided against the assessee. We, therefore, direct the AAC to verify whether these grounds of appeal raised in the me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
