1981 (8) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so the assessee was hit by section 13(2). He also found that the assessee had invested in the shares of a company, styled Laxmi Starcy Ltd., to an extent which exceeded 5 per cent of the capital of the said company and that the said company was one to which section 13(2)(h) read with Explanation 3 applied. Hence, he held that the assessee was also hit by section 13(2)(h) and not saved even by section 13(4). Hence, he denied the exemption under section 11 and subjected the entire income of the assessee to tax. 3. For the assessment year 1974-75 (previous year ended 31-12-1973) there was no loan to Das & Co. but the funds of the assessee continued to remain invested in the shares of Laxmi Starch Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....capital of the company and so section 13(4) did not apply. Shri Dilip Dwarkadas replied that the investments of the assessee in the company did not exceed 5 per cent of the equity capital of the company in the second year as it was only Rs. 1,98,100. 7. We have considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. So far as the first year is concerned, we find that the assessee is squarely hit by section 13(2)(a). Personal security is no security in the eye of law because in the event of the dissolution of the firm the debt due to the assessee can only be regarded as unsecured. This debt has admittedly not been secured against any of the assets of the firm. Hence, the assessee loses exemption on all its income unde....