Section 47(v) interpretation upheld: holding company ownership read pragmatically, with no substantial question of law arising.

The Tribunal's interpretation of section 47(v) was upheld: an Indian company cannot have fewer than two shareholders under the Companies Act, 1956, so "whole of the share capital" held by a holding company could not be read as requiring the shares to stand only in the holding company's name. A contrary Revenue construction was rejected because it would make section 47(v) ineffective in practice and was inconsistent with settled principles of interpretation. No substantial question of law was found to arise, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was in holding that the requirement in section 47(v) was satisfied on the facts, and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that a company in India cannot have fewer than two shareholders under the Companies Act, 1956, and that the expression "whole of the share capital" held by the holding company could not be read as requiring the shares to stand only in the name of the holding company. An interpretation advanced by the Revenue that would make section 47(v) inapplicable in practice would render the provision redundant, and such a construction was rejected as inconsistent with settled principles of interpretation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was upheld and no substantial question of law was found to arise; the appeal was dismissed.

---