Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.69 seconds)Section 2 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar on 12 October, 1971
21. The aforesaid decision of the apex Court in the case of
C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) has been followed by the
apex Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT
(supra). In this case, the company advanced the loans to
the assessee HUF who was the beneficial owners of the
shares in the company, but the shares were registered in
the name of the individual Karta, who held the shares for
and on behalf of the HUF. On the above facts, the question
before the Supreme Court was whether the loans advanced
to the HUF-beneficial owner of the shares-would be taxed
as deemed dividend in the hands of the HUF. The Supreme
Court held that the HUF being only the beneficial
shareholder and not a registered shareholder would not fall
within the purview of Section 2(6A)(e) of the 1922 Act. The
apex Court observed as follows:
Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 May, 1965
In this view of the
matter, it will not be correct to say that the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal Vs.
CIT 122 ITR 1 that word ―shareholder‖ in section 2(22)(e)
is no more applicable.