Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT

132 ITR 559Supreme Court of India1981#3035 most cited

What is Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A reserve set apart to meet a known liability is not a reserve for the purposes of accounting, but rather a provision for a liability. This means it cannot be considered a reserve for tax purposes.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1996 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 132 ITR 559 · SC · 1981 · debenture redemption reserve · liability vs reserve · Companies Act 1956 · Schedule VI · provision for liability · commercial accountancy

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 28

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 115JB(2)(i) (Explanation 1Section 115QASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(d)Section 2(47)Section 251(2)Section 80-IA

Issues it is cited on

section 33acsection 80hhesection 32asection 117section 74section 210section 4asection 73section 72section 115jasection 288section 80h

Judgments citing Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 83/RJT/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N…

LABH CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees‟ are allowed

ITA 1326/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlabh Capital Services Pvt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd. 7(1)(4) A-Wing Mahatre Pen Room No. 1104, 11Th Bldg, Senapati Bapat Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Marg, Dadar (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400028 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T VAKERY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Labh Capital Services Pvt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd. 7(1)(4) A-Wing Mahatre Pen Room No. 1104, 11th Bldg, Senapati Bapat Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Marg, Dadar (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400028 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACL2308R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mahaveer Jain, AR, Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of Hearing 24.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH :- 1. The present ap…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Bank of India Act, 1934, is in fact a liability and not a reserve. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in National Rayon Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 227 ITR 764 (SC), and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the appellant-assessee Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. does not have any title over the reserve and, therefore, it is a case of diversion of income at source. Reliance is placed upon several decisions relating to Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Bank of India Act, 1934, is in fact a liability and not a reserve. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in National Rayon Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 227 ITR 764 (SC), and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the appellant-assessee Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. does not have any title over the reserve and, therefore, it is a case of diversion of income at source. Reliance is placed upon several decisions relating to Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Bank of India Act, 1934, is in fact a liability and not a reserve. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in National Rayon Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 227 ITR 764 (SC), and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the appellant-assessee Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. does not have any title over the reserve and, therefore, it is a case of diversion of income at source. Reliance is placed upon several decisions relating to Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD. , AHAMEDABAD

ITA 9516/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sulton Tabacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT {(1981) 132 ITR 559}, in holding that since the concept of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD. , AHAMEDABAD

ITA 9515/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sulton Tabacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT {(1981) 132 ITR 559}, in holding that since the concept of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD. , AHAMEDABAD

ITA 9514/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sulton Tabacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT {(1981) 132 ITR 559}, in holding that since the concept of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD. , AHAMEDABAD

ITA 9513/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sulton Tabacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT {(1981) 132 ITR 559}, in holding that since the concept of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations…

M/S. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2418/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sulton Tabacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT {(1981) 132 ITR 559}, in holding that since the concept of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The following observations…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…ned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that it is held by this Court in the cases of CIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 and Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, A.P., Hyderabad, (1981) 4 SCC 435 = (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC) that where an expression has not been defined, 13 the Court shall resort to the ordinary natural meaning as understood in common parlance. It is submitted that in common parlance, Court rulings and legislations, “firm” has been always understood as partnership firm. Therefore, in the present case, “consulting engineer” before its…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…ourt has also observed that once the assessee transferred any amount to the general reserve, it treated the same as the profit. In this connection, reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559 , where it has been held that a reserve is appropriation of profits. Page 15 of 16 22. In the light of the discussion made above, and following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. (supra) where the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (supra)…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -I, KOLKATA vs. VIPER ESTATES & INVESTMENT (P) LTD.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA/67/2012HC Calcutta18 Jan 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : January 18, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Advocate Mr. Avra Mazumder, Advocate …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 890/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 15Th June, 2012 To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:-

Section 260ASection 263Section 28

…OD – 33 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/67/2012 IN THE MATTER OF : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA VS VIPER ESTATES & INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATED : JANUARY 18, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Advocate …for appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Advocate Mr. Avra Mazumder, Advocate …for respondent The Court :- This appeal by the revenue under Se…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 701/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

M/S. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 348/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GENUS ELETROTECH LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2617/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

M/S. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2461/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 99/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 1899/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 1898/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…iability, a Debenture Redemption Reserve cannot be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. In National Rayon Corporation, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [[1981] 132 ITR 559], in holding that since the concept of reserve and of a provision is well known in commercial accountancy and is used in the Companies Act, 1956, while dealing with the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts the meaning of that concept would have to be gathered from the meaning attached in the Companies Act itself. The followi…

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (132 ITR 559) — Cited in 39 Judgments | BharatTax