Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 935 1977 SLD 935 (1977) 106 ITR 895
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No. 283 OF 1972 JANUARY 19, 1977
R.S. SARKARIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Bishamber Lal for the Appellant. V.S. Desai, J. Ramamurthi and R.N. Sachthey for the
Respondent.

R. Dalmia

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to section 2(6C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Income - Definition of - Assessment year 1955-56 - Company spent certain amount on personal necessities of assessee who was beneficial owner of said company carrying more than 20 per cent voting power - Whether in context of section 2(6C)(iii) of 1922 Act expression 'person concerned in the management of the business' might take in not only person who directly participates or engaged in management of business but also one who indirectly controls its management, through managerial staff, from behind scene - Held, yes - Whether assessee's admission that he was in control of company, necessarily included an admission of his being "concerned in management of business of company", and, therefore, amount in question was income of assessee within meaning of section 2(6C)(iii) of 1922 Act - Held, yes Words and phrases: Word 'concerned' as occurring in section 2(6C)(iii) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. FACTS One B company had spent certain amount on the personal necessities of the assessee during the previous year without charging for the same. The assessee was not a director of the said company. He, however, was the beneficial owner of shares carrying more than 20 per cent voting powers. The ITO treated the benefit received by the assessee as his 'income' under section 2(6C)(iii) of the 1922 Act and charged it to tax along with some other items of income. On appeal, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was 'concerned in the management' of the said company being the beneficial owner of shares carrying more than 20 per cent of the voting power, and as such the benefit received by him from that company was his 'income' within the latter part of clause (iii) of section 2(6C) of the 1922 Act. On reference, the High Court held against the assessee. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the assessee contended that the item received by the assessee was not a 'benefit or perquisite' within the contemplation of section 2(6C)(iii) of the 1922 Act, because, firstly, the constituents of this item were not cash amounts…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492