Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.40 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs Pranlal Jayanand Thakar And Ors on 17 July, 1974
and does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that
case, the share certificates were given as gifts by the donor
to the donee, the donor also signed several blank forms so as
to bring transfer of donated shares in the registers of the
various companies and share certificates in his own name.
However, the share certificate could not be transferred in the
register of various companies before the death of the donor.
In this factual context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
a transfer of property rights in shares recognised by transfer
of property Act may be antecedent to the actual vesting of all
rights of ownership of shares and exercise of the rights of
shareholders in accordance with the provisions of the
company law. However, the ratio laid down cannot be
construed to mean that the provisions of company's Act will
not apply to the transfer of shares. So far as the reliance
placed by the learned authorised representative for the
assessee on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
contend that income must be held to have accrued in the real
sense of term, we would like to observe that, we respectfully
agree with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in those decisions. However, suffice it to say
that ratio laid down in a decision is in consideration of
certain facts and circumstances involved in that case. It
cannot be applied uniformly to all the cases, unless the facts
are identical. In the facts of the present case, the recitals in
MOUs and the conduct of the parties in executing the
transfer forms by the sellers in favour of the buyer recording
of transfers in the share certificates and books of accounts
of the respective companies and the annual return filed
26
ITA No.611 of 2013
Gajjala Madhusudhan Reddy,, Hyd.
Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971
3) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363)
He further submitted that presence or absence of entry is
not conclusive to decide whether income accrues to the
assessee or not. Treatment given in the books of accounts
by the purchasers is also not relevant. In this context, the
learned AR relied upon the following:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Ashokbhai Chimanbhai on 20 October, 1964
a) CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (56 ITR 342)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Motilal C. Patel And Co. on 11 April, 1988
b) CIT vs. Motilal C. Patel & Co. (173 ITR 666)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar-Ii, ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998
Relying
upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs.
Bokoro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), the learned authorised
representative for the assessee submitted that as per the
theory of real income, no income accrues to the assessee.
The D.C.I.T. vs Mangal Dayak Chit Fund (P) Ltd. ... on 31 August, 2004
Act held that only when the shares are ascertained and in a
deliverable state it can be said that there is a transfer of
shares. An agreement to transfer shares in a company
accompanied with actual instrument of transfer would denote
the transfer of shares. In the case of K.N. Narayanan (145
ITR 373), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that if an
instrument of transfer is duly executed and is delivered to
the company along with the concerned share certificates and
when the transfer is registered in the books, the transferee
gets full title for the purpose of companies Act, 1956. The
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Mangal chand
(255 ITR 329) after examining the provisions of the sale of
goods Act as well as companies Act held that so far as the
transferee is concerned, delivery of all share certificates
will result in completing the transaction between the
transferor and transferee notwithstanding the fact that the
same may not be registered in the register of members.
Until such alteration in the company's record takes place
however the interaction between the company and its
shareholders or debenture holders as per its records, does
not affect the genuineness of the transaction of transfer
which in fact has taken place between its
shareholder/debenture holder and other persons and
subsequent transfers which have otherwise taken place in
accordance with the law of transfer of movable property.