<?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>1969 (7) TMI 8 -  BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7585</link>
    <description>A company falls outside section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where the public beneficially holds more than 25% of the voting power and the shares are in fact freely transferable. The relevant test examines both public shareholding and the absence of any general restraint on transferability. Article 55, which merely empowered directors to refuse registration in special cases, was treated as a limited protective power customary in public companies and not a general restriction. Actual dealings also showed that transfers were normally effected. On that basis, the company was treated as one in which the public were substantially interested, and section 23A did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 8 -  BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7585</link>
      <description>A company falls outside section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where the public beneficially holds more than 25% of the voting power and the shares are in fact freely transferable. The relevant test examines both public shareholding and the absence of any general restraint on transferability. Article 55, which merely empowered directors to refuse registration in special cases, was treated as a limited protective power customary in public companies and not a general restriction. Actual dealings also showed that transfers were normally effected. On that basis, the company was treated as one in which the public were substantially interested, and section 23A did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>