Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. on 30 March, 1976
In that, the concerned officer had relied on a ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zenith Pipes Ltd, 1977 CTR (Bom) 119 : (1978) 112 ITR 215 (Bom). In the said order, this figure of Rs. 1, 16,16,134 was arrived at on the basis of the difference between book depreciation and the depreciation allowed by the Department for the years from 1976-77 to 1983-84. It seems that the excess values were added up both in case of the values reflected from the account books and values reflected from the assessment orders. The difference in these totals was arrived at Rs. 1,16,16,134 and that figure was used for applying r. 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. The said authority, thereafter, however, realised that the figure was not correct and issued the above-mentioned notice, whereby, it is suggested that the written down value as per the books as on 1st Oct., 1982, was Rs. 10,00,33,000, while the written down value of the assets as on 1st Oct., 1982, was Rs. 6,21,85,351, the difference being Rs. 3,78,47,649. This amount should have been deducted from the capital base instead of Rs. 1,16,16,134 which was deducted in the assessment. The authority concerned treated it as a mistake apparent from the records and called up the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner challenge the said notice on the ground that the concerned authority had no jurisdiction to issue such a notice.
Section 13 in The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
1