<?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>1944 (11) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277350</link>
    <description>Trustees&#039; shares can confer controlling interest on a director where the trust arrangement gives him overriding management power and the trustees are bound to act on his directions. The Bombay HC rejected the argument that only a beneficial interest could satisfy section 2(21)(a) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, holding that the trustee&#039;s interest was sufficient on the facts. The trust deed and articles of association showed that the director could direct the trustees and vote as he pleased when present, so the majority vote of trustees could not displace his authority; the company was therefore treated as director-controlled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 15:48:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1944 (11) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277350</link>
      <description>Trustees&#039; shares can confer controlling interest on a director where the trust arrangement gives him overriding management power and the trustees are bound to act on his directions. The Bombay HC rejected the argument that only a beneficial interest could satisfy section 2(21)(a) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, holding that the trustee&#039;s interest was sufficient on the facts. The trust deed and articles of association showed that the director could direct the trustees and vote as he pleased when present, so the majority vote of trustees could not displace his authority; the company was therefore treated as director-controlled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>