9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levy of higher tax on the assessee due to not being a company substantially interested in by the public for assessment years, interpretation of provisions under section 2(18)(b) regarding company's status, relevance of shareholding control and allotment of shares to determine company's status. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin dealt with the issue of the levy of a higher percentage of tax on the assessee for assessment years in which it was not considered a company in which the public were substantially interested. The case revolved around the interpretation of provisions under section 2(18)(b) regarding the company's status and the relevance of shareholding control and allotment of shares to determine the company's status. The assessee contended that despite not fulfilling the formal requirements of section 2(18)(b), in substance, it was a company substantially interested by the public. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, leading to appeals by the department. The facts revealed that the assessee was formed to take over the Indian business of a foreign company, with a scheme approved by the High Court. The scheme involved the transfer of assets and shares to the foreign company, subject to specific conditions. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim based on the control of voting power by five persons and restrictions on share transfers. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the scheme's intent and the timing of share allotments. The departmental representative argued against the company's claim, emphasizing shareholding patterns and restrictions on share transfers. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 2(18)(b) and the company's formation with the purpose of taking over the foreign company's business. It highlighted the restrictions on share transfers as a standard practice and emphasized the control of voting power by five persons during the relevant period. The Tribunal considered the purpose behind the provisions and concluded that the company, being a mere holder of the undertaking with no activities or dividends, was substantially interested by the public. Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of considering the purpose behind statutory provisions in interpreting the company's status for tax purposes. The judgment underscores the significance of intent and practical implications in determining a company's classification under tax laws.
|
