| Case ID |
007530a4-2971-4266-bc6f-ff4e0346d033 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX CASE Nos. 225 OF 1972 AND 290 OF 1975 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 10, 1976 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that for the assessment year 1956-57, the law must be applied as it stood before the amendment of section 23A of the 1922 Act. The assessee-company could not be considered a company in which the public were substantially interested. For the subsequent assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the conditions of the amended section 23A were satisfied, allowing the assessee-company to be treated as one in which the public were substantially interested. The final ruling was partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the revenue. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Madras High Court examined the applicability of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and its relevance to the assessment years of 1956-57, 1959-60, and 1960-61. The court analyzed whether the assessee-company, primarily owned by a single entity, could be classified as a company in which the public were substantially interested. It concluded that for 1956-57, the provisions of the earlier legislation applied, while the amendments after 1957 allowed for a different interpretation in subsequent years. This case emphasizes the importance of statutory interpretation and its impact on taxation and corporate governance. The ruling has significant implications for companies with similar ownership structures and highlights the complexities involved in tax law and public interest considerations. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sheveroy Estates Ltd.
|
| Judges |
Ismail, J.,
Sethuraman, J.
|
| Lawyers |
T.V. Balakrishnan,
C.V. Mahalingam,
S. Mathrubutheswaran,
K.J. Rebello,
J. Jayaraman,
Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram
|
| Petitioners |
Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1978 SLD 360,
(1978) 111 ITR 787
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 291 (Ker.),
Cooper v. Slade [1858] 6 HLC 746,
East India Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 16 (Mad.),
East London Ry. v. Whitechurch [1874] LR 7 HL 81,
Green v. R. [1876] 1 App Cas 513,
Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1963 SC 1083,
Harcourt v. Fox [1693] 1 Show 506,
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 762 (Bom.),
Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 89 ITR 53 (SC),
R. v. Berchet [1690] 1 Show 108,
R. v. St. John, Westagate, Burial Board [1862] 2 B & S 703,
Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 667 SC,
West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assurance Society [1897] AC 647 (HL)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
104,
23A
|