Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Cit vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 23, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710229

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
Surtax Reference No. 6 of 1978 23 August 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. - - 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...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate R.C. Pandey,; Ms. Prem Lata Bansal and; Ajay Jha, for t

Respondent

Oriental Bank of Commerce

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]119TAXMAN710(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - - 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. for the purpose of bad and doubtful debts actual quantification would be necessary.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]219itr388(sc) .

Full Judgment

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]219ITR388(SC) .

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial