Law:

Section:

Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23A of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Additional income-tax on undistributed profits of certain companies - Assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 - Company claimed it to be a public company - AAC held that atleast 80 per cent of voting power was in hands of one 'S'; that his two sons and wife were acting in concert with him and with other directors and that two shareholders companies were also practically under his control - However, Tribunal took a contrary view - Whether Tribunal should have reviewed entire evidence available before lower authorities and come to an independent finding that circumstances of case were such that judging from human experience, it could be safely said that 'S', his wife and two sons were acting in concert would generally be not available - Held, yes - Whether as Tribunal's finding was based on main reason that wife and son were not nominees of 'S' and they did not further examine with a view to as certain that they were acting together statement of case was incomplete - Held, yes [Matter remanded to Tribunal to state case properly] FACTS The assessee-company claimed it to be a public company for the purpose of section 23A urging that the shares of the company carrying not less than twenty-five per cent, of the voting power had been allotted unconditionally to and were beneficially held by the public, as required by the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 23A. The AAC of Income-tax rejected this contention on two main grounds. Firstly, that the company was in fact a one man's company wholly under the control of one 'S', that his two sons and his wife were acting in concert with him and with the other directors and that the two other shareholder companies were also practically under his control. On appeal, the Tribunal took a contrary view, holding that there was no evidence to show that either his wife or his two sons were his nominees, and also that out of the total of 50,000 shares, 22,000 shares were held by persons who were not under S's control and, consequently, the minimum requirement of 25 per cent in the Explanation to section 23A was satisfied. On…

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