<?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>1979 (2) TMI 60 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37372</link>
    <description>A company with more than half its shares held by corporate shareholders was treated as a company in which the public were substantially interested. The analysis applied the amended definition and the relevant circular to hold that corporate shareholders were not excluded from the public element when testing the applicability of penal super-tax provisions. On that basis, the levy under section 23A of the 1922 Act and section 104 of the 1961 Act did not apply, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:57:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (2) TMI 60 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37372</link>
      <description>A company with more than half its shares held by corporate shareholders was treated as a company in which the public were substantially interested. The analysis applied the amended definition and the relevant circular to hold that corporate shareholders were not excluded from the public element when testing the applicability of penal super-tax provisions. On that basis, the levy under section 23A of the 1922 Act and section 104 of the 1961 Act did not apply, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>