1957 (9) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in view of a decision of a Division Bench of this court, to which I was a party, in Cambatta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1946] 14 ITR 748 , and the only reason for the Income-tax Commissioner having the question referred to us can be that he wishes to canvass it before a higher Tribunal. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family. The family owned 1,842 shares of the Cotton Export a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... court took the view that under the provisions of section 16(2) regarding grossing up and of section 18(5) which provide that in respect of the difference between the actual dividend and the amount grossed up, the shareholder shall be treated as the person who has paid income-tax, the only person who is to be considered is the registered shareholder and not the beneficial owner; and applying the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to express an opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision, they might have at least stated the grounds on which they thought the purpose for which that section was enacted was defeated by the interpretation put by this court in Cambatta's case (supra). No doubt it is true, as the Tribunal observes, that no share can be registered in the name of the Hindu undivided family because....