https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6279 The Explanation to section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required satisfaction of both negative conditions in clause (b): the company's affairs must not have been controlled by less than six persons, and persons holding more than 50% of the voting power must also not have been less than six. Because failure of either condition prevented the company from being treated as one in which the public were substantially interested, the statutory benefit was denied. The Court also held that an order directing payment of additional super-tax under section 23A was not an assessment order for section 34(3), so the limitation in that provision did not apply. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6279 The Explanation to section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required satisfaction of both negative conditions in clause (b): the company's affairs must not have been controlled by less than six persons, and persons holding more than 50% of the voting power must also not have been less than six. Because failure of either condition prevented the company from being treated as one in which the public were substantially interested, the statutory benefit was denied. The Court also held that an order directing payment of additional super-tax under section 23A was not an assessment order for section 34(3), so the limitation in that provision did not apply. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6279