<?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>1989 (2) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5267</link>
    <description>For the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, shares carrying at least 25% of the voting power had to be freely transferable during the whole of the previous year, not merely at some point within it. The Court construed the phrase &quot;in the course of such previous year&quot; as referring to the entire previous year, because the provision used different temporal expressions for beneficial ownership at year-end and for free transferability during the year. As transfer restrictions continued until 26 March 1951, the statutory condition was not satisfied and the company was not treated as one in which the public were substantially interested.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5267</link>
      <description>For the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, shares carrying at least 25% of the voting power had to be freely transferable during the whole of the previous year, not merely at some point within it. The Court construed the phrase &quot;in the course of such previous year&quot; as referring to the entire previous year, because the provision used different temporal expressions for beneficial ownership at year-end and for free transferability during the year. As transfer restrictions continued until 26 March 1951, the statutory condition was not satisfied and the company was not treated as one in which the public were substantially interested.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>