https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11936 The dominant issue was whether compensation received under a deed from a closely held company by shareholder-director applicants constituted a capital receipt or a revenue receipt taxable as income. The HC held that, in tax matters, the corporate veil may be lifted where circumstances warrant, and the payment's true character must be determined by examining the economic reality behind the company's formal structure. Given that the recipients, as partners, owned the hotel buildings and equipment used by the company, the deed was found in substance to be a device to screen payments from income-tax liability, warranting veil-piercing per SC authority. The receipt was held to be revenue in nature and assessable as income, answering the reference for the Revenue. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11936 The dominant issue was whether compensation received under a deed from a closely held company by shareholder-director applicants constituted a capital receipt or a revenue receipt taxable as income. The HC held that, in tax matters, the corporate veil may be lifted where circumstances warrant, and the payment's true character must be determined by examining the economic reality behind the company's formal structure. Given that the recipients, as partners, owned the hotel buildings and equipment used by the company, the deed was found in substance to be a device to screen payments from income-tax liability, warranting veil-piercing per SC authority. The receipt was held to be revenue in nature and assessable as income, answering the reference for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11936