TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee-company was a company in which the public were substantially interested, and whether the shares held in the name of a joint registered holder could be excluded or clubbed for applying the test of less than six persons holding more than fifty per cent of the voting power.
Analysis: The statutory test under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, required that the shares carrying more than fifty per cent of the voting power should not be held by fewer than six persons, and that relatives within the defined categories were to be treated as a single person. The registered holding in the name of M/s. R. P. Goenka & Ors. could not be ignored merely because it was not a separate legal entity, since the record showed an actual registered shareholding with voting consequences attached to registration. However, the relationship clause had to be strictly construed, and only those persons who were relatives of one another within the statutory definition could be clubbed. On that construction, Smt. Sushila Devi Goenka could not be treated as related to all the other persons in the group for the purpose of aggregation, and the statutory mischief was not attracted.
Conclusion: The assessee-company was not hit by the statutory disqualification, and the question whether it was not a company in which the public were substantially interested was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
