Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

    Cit v. Oriental Bank Of Commerce

    Heard. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :

    "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gratuity reserve of Rs. 2 lakhs and reserve for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 7,19,863 are includible in the capital base for determining the statutory deduction under section 2(6) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?"

    2. We find that gratuity reserve and reserve for bad and doubtful debts have not been worked out on actuarial basis. It is to be noted that so far as the gratuity reserve is concerned, it is to be worked out on actuarial basis. For the purpose of bad and doubtful debts actual quantification would be necessary. That question does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. That being the position, we remit the question back for fresh hearing in view of what has been stated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 388.

    2. We find that gratuity reserve and reserve for bad and doubtful debts have not been worked out on actuarial basis. It is to be noted that so far as the gratuity reserve is concerned, it is to be worked out on actuarial basis. For the purpose of bad and doubtful debts actual quantification would be necessary. That question does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. That being the position, we remit the question back for fresh hearing in view of what has been stated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 388.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Cit v. Oriental Bank Of Commerce
    (Aug 23, 2001)