Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (3.94 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Nidhi Ltd. on 25 January, 1965

Kameshwari Finance And Leasing (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 January, 2006

The CIT(A) has however made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhamt Nidhi Ltd. (supra), It may be mentioned here that in the facts of that case the serial numbers of the shares had not been mentioned. There was no evidence regarding delivery of shares nor was there evidence to show payment of purchase price. Besides the above, there was no delivery of transfer deed duly signed along with share certificate. In those circumstances the Court had held that there was no transfer of ownership in shares. As already pointed out in the present case the position is different inasmuch as all the conditions have been fulfilled. The law is well settled that absence of registration of the name of the transferee as a shareholder in the register of members of the company is not a condition precedent for holding that a particular person is a holder of shares in a company or not. In view of the above, we are of the view that the assessee became the owner of shares as on 18th Jan., 1996.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 April, 2003

In the case of Bharat Nidhi (supra) there was merely agreement to sell. No transfer deed was also executed. The shares were not handed over and the price was not received. In these circumstances, the Delhi High Court held that transfer was not complete. But in the present case, the entire amount of purchase consideration was credited to the current account of the assessee-company in the books of the firm. There is no requirement under the law relating to sale of goods and even of immoveable property that purchase consideration has necessarily got to be paid in cash. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, where the parties to a contract agreed that the payment for and delivery of the goods are to be postponed, the property in goods passes to the buyer as soon as the proposal for sale is accepted. In the present case, there was an agreement to sell. The entire amount of purchase consideration was credited to the current account of the assessee-company in the books of the firm. The other various conditions were also fulfilled for the transfer of shares as we have discussed above. Therefore, there was a complete transfer of shares. This Court case, therefore, is not relevant to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the transfer in the present case is under the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act, hence the above Court case is different on facts and the same, therefore, does not have any application to the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 66 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kameshwari Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 13 January, 2006

The Commissioner (Appeals) has however made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (supra). It may be mentioned here that in the facts of that case the serial numbers of the shares had not been mentioned. There was no evidence regarding delivery of shares nor was there evidence to show payment of purchase price. Besides the above, there was no delivery of transfer deed duly signed along with share certificate. In those circumstances the court had held that there was no transfer of ownership in shares. As already pointed out in the present case the position is different inasmuch as all the conditions have been fulfilled. The law is well settled that absence of registration of the name of the transferee as a shareholder in the register of members of the company is not a condition precedent for holding that a particular person is a holder of shares in a company or not. In view of the above, we are of the view that the assessee became the owner of shares as on 18-1- 1996.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Rajagiri Rubber And Produce Co. Ltd. on 29 October, 1985

There is another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (supra). According to the facts appearing in that case, the assessee-company, a dealer in shares, entered into two transactions for the sale to two purchasers of certain shares which were in the custody of a bank. The transaction was entered into on 5-2-1948. Under the terms of the transactions the purchasers could take delivery of the shares by 31-3-1948 and if the purchasers did not take delivery by that date, dividends after that date were to be for their benefit but the purchasers had to pay interest on that purchase price. While dealing with this fact, the Delhi High Court held that "an agreement to transfer shares in a company accompanied with the actual instrument of transfer which had not been completed so far as the transferor could complete it did not amount to a transfer deed sufficient to cause the title to pass. By itself it would be nothing more than an enforceable agreement to convey and until the transfer endorsement was signed the shares would be unascertained goods and would not be in a deliverable state". (p. 448)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajkumar Singh And Co. on 28 February, 2005

16. The next point noted by the AO was that assessee has shown receipt of dividend of Rs. 51,25,000 on 17th Oct., 1990 in respect of 1,02,50,000 shares which were transferred on the register of company as on 22nd Nov., 1990. According to the AO, if the abovereferred to shares were sold by the assessee on 17th April, 1990 and on 18th April, 1990 as alleged, then there was no occasion for the assessee to receive dividend worth Rs. 51,25,000 on shares already sold by it and it again raises question mark as to the genuineness of the transactions of shares with reference to date. On this basis, the AO opined that agreement for sale shown on 17th April; 1990 and 18th April, 1990 was nothing but it was an afterthought manipulation made by the assessee for tax avoidance and share transfer deeds were collusive and non-reliable. It was also concluded by the AO that genuine date of transfer has been registered in the register of the company which was 19th May, 1990, 31st Aug., 1990 and 22nd Nov., 1990 as noted above. For this, the AO placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. and the apex Court decision in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT in which it was held that the date of accrual of capital gain is the date when transfer takes place and the entries in the account books are irrelevant for determining such date.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 35 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Bombay Gas Company Ltd. vs Hindustan Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 8 June, 1978

11. Mr. S.B. Mukherjee, appearing with Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. Jayanta Mitra for the company, submitted, firstly, that the company is a banking company and it is entitled to carry on any of the businesses in its objects clause and in fact it is carrying on the business of investment and earning profit on the consideration money as would appear from the balance-sheets of the company up to 31st December, 1974, 31st December, 1975 and 31st December, 1976. Mr. Mukherjee cited the leading decisions on the question whether a company's substratum has gone or not and for that purpose he cited a decision in Murlidhar Roy's case, AIR 1920 Cal 72, the decision in Kitson 6 Co. Ltd., In re [1946] 1 All ER 435 (CA), Seth Mohan Lal v. Grain Chambers Ltd. , Taldua Rubber Co. Ltd., In re [1946] 2 All ER 763 (Ch D) and also cited a decision in CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 520; 36 Comp Cas 457 (Punj), in support of the contention that the company's substratum cannot be said to have gone as there are other objects clauses which authorise the company to carry on business. He also submitted that the shareholders of the company at its 33rd annual general meeting had rejected the resolution for voluntary winding up and the proposed resolution for change of the name and alteration of the objects clause of the articles of the company has been adjourned by this court from time to time pending the disposal of this application. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the winding-up petition cannot be said to be a bona fide one but a sheer abuse of the process of the court knowing fully well that the resolution will be passed for change of the name and alteration of the objects clause. Therefore, the petitioner is trying to put pressure on the company for the purpose of getting the value of his share paid by the company. Mr. Mukherjee also submitted that the court has power to wind up a company only under Section 38 of the Banking Regulation Act and not on any other ground under Section 433 having regard to the non-obstante clause in Section 38 of the Banking Regulation Act. But, in my view, the said contention cannot be accepted, as indicated before, as the provisions of the Companies Act will apply subject to the special provisions of Section 38 of the Banking Regulation Act, i.e., the grounds, except what is laid down in Section 38, for winding up of the company under Section 433 of. the Companies Act are available for winding up of the company after the prima facie grounds are made out.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kishan Chand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 10 January, 1997

5. This High Court had an occasion to examine the question of set off of carried forward loss in CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Limited 11966] 60 ITR 520. That was a case where the assessee had dropped the business of banking but continued to carry on the business of moneylending, financing and purchase and sale of securities. The assessee had claimed set off of the losses incurred in the earlier years in the banking business. It was held that, even after the banking business was terminated, the assessee had derived income from other sources in the subsequent period and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim set off of the losses. The balance-sheet of the assessee showed that, even after the assessee had dropped its banking business, it maintained its capital with its assets, made realisations and discharged its liabilities, retained its staff and continued to incur legal expenses in connection with its business. It would be, thus, clear from the view taken in the aforesaid case that, if any part of the business is discontinued, the assessee is entitled to claim set off of the unabsorbed losses of the earlier year incurred in the discontinued business against the profit earned from the remaining business.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Indraprastha Steel Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 25 October, 1971

(11) The learned counsel for the assessed placed great reliance on Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (60 I.T.R. 520)(3)in which case the assessed under its name of Bharat Bank Limited apart from carrying on other business was engaged in the banking business as well. In 1949, the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (Act 10 of 1949) was enacted. Because of the restrictions imposed under the aforesaid Act the assessed did not wish to continue its banking business and it transferred its banking business to the Punjab National Bank Limited on 10th March, 1951. By a resolution passed by the share-holders of the assessed its name was changed from Bharat Bank Limited to Bharat Nidhi Limited. The assessed after 10th March, 1951, actually did not do any banking business and it was only in September, 1952, that it advanced some money to a borrower. In the year ending December 31, 1951, the Income-tax Officer computed certain loss for the period from January I to March 10, 1951 and income for the remaining period, i.e., March Ii, 1951 to December 31, 1951, and the Income-tax Officer set off the loss of the first period against the income of the later period. The assessed had incurred certain losses in the earlier years which it sought to carry forward and set off against profits. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessed terminated its banking business on the 10th March, 1951. The Income-tax Officer held that the loss in the preceding years was from business which could not be set off as carry forward loss against income after March 10, 1951 because the Income-tax Officer took the view that the said income did not arise from business, profession or vocation but was income from other sources. The Income-tax Officer disallowed certain other claims of the assessed as well. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer in appeal. In further appeal the Tribunal held that the assessed's business of money lending remained intact and accepted the claim of the assessed and granted the relief sought by it. The Tribunal found from the balance sheet that even after the assessed dropped its banking business, the assessed maintained its capital with its assets. Besides, the Tribunal found that the assessed continued to realise income from its assets and discharged liabilities and that the assessed maintained its staff to which regular payments were made; that it continued to incur legal expenses connected with its business and it continued to pay its Directors for maintaining its affairs. Before the High Court the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue was that the assessed advanced no money to anybody after March, 1951, until sometime in September, 1952 and as such it could not be held to have continued its business of financing other than banking. The contention was repelled by the High Court on the ground that mere inactivity for a period did not mean that its business ceased to exist or that it did not carry on business at all. In this connection the High Court observed as follows at page 528 :- "'Abusiness may be inactive for a period and merely because of the dormancy of the business, the conclusion that it has ceased does not arise."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next