<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1926 (11) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175452</link>
    <description>A company&#039;s separate legal personality did not prevent scrutiny of whether a family trust arrangement was real or merely colourable. The Court treated the alleged transfer and declaration of trust as sham where the shares and securities remained under the assessee&#039;s control, no formal transfer was required, the trust deed was unregistered, and the company&#039;s role was confined to paper entries without commercial purpose. It also found that amounts routed through the company as supposed loans were not genuine loans, since dividends and interest had been received by the assessee, there was no written loan arrangement, no authorising resolution, no security, no corresponding cash movement, and no repayment. The sums were therefore taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:47:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1926 (11) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175452</link>
      <description>A company&#039;s separate legal personality did not prevent scrutiny of whether a family trust arrangement was real or merely colourable. The Court treated the alleged transfer and declaration of trust as sham where the shares and securities remained under the assessee&#039;s control, no formal transfer was required, the trust deed was unregistered, and the company&#039;s role was confined to paper entries without commercial purpose. It also found that amounts routed through the company as supposed loans were not genuine loans, since dividends and interest had been received by the assessee, there was no written loan arrangement, no authorising resolution, no security, no corresponding cash movement, and no repayment. The sums were therefore taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>