Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills, Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay

Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) l?a~huvanshi 1Wills, ttd. v. Co1n'1tissioner of Income-tat'", Bon1flay Hidayatullah J. December 7. 990 [1961] case the provisions of s. 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922, are applicable to t.he petitioners?" The High Court may call for a supplemental state-ment of the case from the Tribunal, if it finds it neces-sary. The appeal is allowed. The respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal. The costs in the High Court shall abide the result. Appeal allowed. SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. ti. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Income-tux-Undistributed income-Company in w/licl• Public' are substantially interested-Powers to assess Super Tax-Test-Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, I9j0, cl. I4-lndian Income-tax Act, I922 (II of I922), s. 23A(I). During the assessment year, the company had not distri-buted dividends to the extent of 60% of its profits and an order under s. 23A(1) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer. The question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court was whether at the relevant time the assessee company could be deemed to be a company in which the public were sub-stantially interested, i.e., held 25% of the voting power, was answered in the negative. Held, that the test that no holding by the Directors of a company could be regarded as one in which the public were sub-stantially interested was not the correct test to apply. The test as laid down in Raghuvanshi Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 978, would apply to this Case. Held, further, that the paramount condition in applying the proviso and the explanation of s. 23A(r) was that the public should be beneficially int.rested in 25% of the voting power. The explanation to s. 23A required that shares held by the company should be considered as held by the public, only if s. 23A did not apply to it. The concession order in cl. 14 of the Part B States \Taxation Concession) Order, 1950, did not seek to negative that test, it only conlerred a benefit on a company, > • to which cl. 14 applied, and the company could avail that con-cession, and still might fall within s. 23A for other purposes. The Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Slwu Changdeo Bombay, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 978, applied. Sugar ~11/s, CIVIL APPELLJ.TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Commisstoner of No. 380 of 1957. r..com•-ta,,, Sugar ~11/s, Ltd. Appeal Commisstoner of r..com•-ta,,, Bombay Appeal from the judgment apd order dated March 8, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 4of1956. Q. A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, J.B. Dad,achanji and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1960. December 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal, on a certificate by Hidayatullah J. the High Court, has been filed by Shree Cbangdeo Sugar Mills, Ltd., to which s. 23A of the Income-tax Act (prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955) was applied in respect of the assessment year, 1948-49. The question which was referred to the High Court was whether at the relevant time the assessee Com-pany could be deemed to be a Company, in which the public were substantially interested. This question was answered in the negative by the High Court. During the assessment year, the Company had not distributed dividends to the extent of ·60 per cent. of its profits, and an order under s. 23A(l) of the Indian Income-tax Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer. The Company appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. It next appealed to the Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal, however, referred the above question which, as already stated, was answered in the negative by the High Court. The issued, subscribed a.nd paid-up capital ef the assessee Company consisted of 60,000 shares, which were distributed as follows: Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) സപീംകോടതി റിപ്ോർട്ടുകൾ 1961-2-990-995 1 നിരാകരണപതം (Disclaimer) പ്രാദേശികഭാഷയില്‍ വിവര്‍ത്തനം ചെയ്ത വിധിന്യായം ഭാരതസര്‍ക്കാര്‍സ്ഥാപനമായ എ.ഐ.സി.ടി.ഇ. യുടെ “അനുവാദിനി” എന്ന നിര്‍മ്മിതബുദധാധിഷ്ഠിത വിവര്‍ത്തന ഉപകരണത്തിന്‍റെ സഹായത്തത്തോടെയും കേരളഹൈക്ക്കോടതിയിലെഐ.റ്റി. ഡയറക്ടറേറസാധൂകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്.എന്നിരുന്നാലും, ഇതിന്‍റെഉളളടക്കത്തില്‍ആശയപരമായയോസാംഗത്യപരമായയോ വ്യാകരണപരമായയോ ആഖ്യാനപരമായയോ തെറ്റുകള്‍ കടന്നുകൂടാന്‍ സാധ്യതയുളളതാണ്. ഈ തര്‍ജ്ജമ കേവലം വ്യവഹാരകക്ഷികളുടെയുംപപൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെയും പപൊതുവായ അറിവിലേകക ഉപയയോഗപ്പെടുത്തുവാന്‍ വേണ്ടിമാത്രം ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ്‌. ഔദ്യ്യോഗികവും പ്രായയോഗികവുമായ എല്ലാആവശ്യങ്ങള്‍ക്കും വിധി നിര്‍വഹണ നടപ്പാക്കലുകള്‍ക്കും പ്രസ്ു വിധിന്യായത്തിന്‍റെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പതിപപ ആധികാരികവും അന്തിമവും ആയിരിക്കും. 1961-2-990-995 2 ശീ ചാങ്ഡിയോ ഷഗർ മിൽസ്, ലിമിറഡ് V ബോംദായ നികതി കമിഷണർ ആബെ (ജസിസസ് . എൽ. കപർ, എം. ഹിദായതള, . സി. ഷാ)ജെജെ ആദായനികുതി-വിതരണം ചെയ്യാത്ത വരുമാനം-പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾക്ക ഗണ്യമായതാൽപ്പര്യമുള്ള സ്ഥാപനം- നികുതിയിന്മേലുള്ള നികുതി-പരിശശോധന-വിലയിരുത്തുന്നതിനുള്ളഅധികാരം-ബി വിഭാഗം സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങൾ (നികുതി പിരിവ് ഇളവ് ) ഉത്തരവ് , I950, ചട്ടം . I4-ആദായനികുതി നിയമം, 1922 (1922 ലെ രണ്ടാം നിയമം), വകുപ്പ 23 എ (ഐ). കണക്കെടുപപ വർഷത്തിൽ, ലാഭത്തിന്റെ 60% വരെ ലാഭവിഹിതം കമ്പനി വിതരണംചെയ്തിട്ടില്ലാത്ത അവസ്ഥയിൽ ആദായനികുതി ഓഫീസർ നിയമത്തിന്റെ വകുപപ 23 എ (1)പ്രകാരമുള്ള ഉത്തരവ് പുറപ്പെടുവിക്ുയും ചെയ്തു. നീതിന്യായകോടതി ഹൈകോടതിയിലേകസമർപ്പിച്ച ചോദ്യം എന്നത്, പ്രസക്തമായ സമയതത നികുതിദായകനായ സ്ഥാപനം,പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾകക കാര്യമായ താൽപ്പര്യമുള്ള, അതായത് പപൊതുജനം വവോട്ടിംഗ്അധികാരത്തിന്റെ 25% കൈവശം വച്ചിരുന്ന ഒരു സ്ഥാപനമായി കണക്കാക്കാമമോഎന്നതായിരുന്നു. ഇല്ല എന്ന ഉത്തരം നൽകി. ഒരു സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ ഡയറക്‌ടർമാരുടെകൈവശമുള്ള ഒരു കൈവശമുള്ള ഓഹരികൽ പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾകക കാര്യമായ താൽപ്പര്യമുള്ളഒന്നായി കണക്കാക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ല എന്ന പരിശശോധന പ്രയയോഗിക്കാനുള്ള ശരിയായപരിശശോധനയല്ല എനന പ്രസ്താവിച്ചു. രഘുവംശി മിൽസ് v. ആദായനികുതി കമ്മീഷണർ, [1961] 2 എസ്.സി.ആർ. 978, ഈ കേസിൽബാധകമാകും. 23 എ(r) വകുപ്പിന്റെ വ്യവസ്ഥയും വിശദീകരണവും ബാധകമാക്കുന്നതിലെ പരമപ്രധാനമായവ്യവസ്ഥ എന്നത് പൊതുജനം വവോട്ടിംഗ് ശക്തിയുടെ 25% -ൽ പ്രയയോജനകരമായിതാൽപ്പര്യമുള്ളവരായിരിക്കണം എന്നും പ്രസ്താവിച്ചു. വകുപപ 23 എ യുടെ വിശദീകരണം എന്നത്വകുപപ 23 എ ബാധകമാകുന്നില്ല എങ്കിൽ മാത്രമേ സ്ഥാപനംയുടെ കൈവശമുള്ള ഓഹരികൾപപൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെ കൈവശമുള്ളതായി കണക്കാക്കാവൂ. ബി വിഭാഗം സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങൾ (നികുതിഇളവ്) ഉത്തരവ്, 1950, ഇളവ് ഉത്തരവ് ചട്ടം 14, ആ പരിശശോധന പ്രതികൂലമാക്കാള്ള ശ്രമിച്ചത്,മറിചച വകുപപ 14 ബാധകമാകുന്ന സ്ഥാപനത്തിന് ഒരു ആനുകൂല്യം മാത്രമാണ് നൽകിയത്,സ്ഥാപനത്തിന് ആ ഇളവ് പ്രയയോജനപ്പെടുത്താൻ കഴിയുമ്പമ്പോഴും മററ ആവശ്യങ്ങൾകക വകുപ 1961-2-990-995 3 23 A യുടെ കീഴിൽ വരാം. രഘുവംശി മിൽസ് ലിമിറ്റഡ് v. ആദായ നികുതി കമ്മീഷണർ,ബോംബെ, [1961] 2 എസ്.സി.ആർ. 978, പ്രയയോഗിച്ചു.സിവിൽ അപീൽ ന്യാധികാരം : 1957- സിവിൽ അപീൽ നമർ 380. ്പയാലെ്പ1956-ലെ ആദായനികുതി റഫറൻസ് നമ്പർ 4 ൽ ബോംബെ ഹൈക്ക്കോടതിയുടെ മാർചച 8,1956 ലെ വിധിയിന്മേലും ഉത്തരവിന്മേലുമുള്ള അപ്പീൽ.അപ്പീലുകാരന് വേണ്ടി എൻ.എ. പൽഖിവാല, എസ്.എൻ. ആൻഡ്‌ലി, രാമേശ്വർ നാഥ്, ജെ.ബി. ദാദാചാൻജി,പി.എൽ. വവോറ. എതിർകക്ഷിക്കായി എ.എൻ.കൃപാൽ, ഡി.ഗുപ്ത Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961)  9782196119573801956841956[][][]19607_1955231948-4960123[][]60,000[][]41,5001112,300211,88034,320460,000 2 253019574,32011,88025[][]123'''''' 3 2360232325[][]195023142314''142323 1423[][] 5 Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) ਕਰ1922 ਦਭਭਰਤਰਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸਐਕਟ, XI ਦਰਧਭਰਭ23A ਦਉਪਬਧਪਟਰਸਨਕਰਤਭਵਟ'ਤਦਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਹਨ?" ਹਭਈਕਰਟਰਟਰਰਬਊਨਲਤਕਤਕਦਸਦਭਸਪਲਰਮਤਲਸਟਦਟਮਤਮਬਗਸਕਦਰਹਟ, ।ਜਦਕਰਉਸਨਇਹਜਰਗਰਰਲਗਦਭਹਟ ਅਪਰਲਦਰਇਜਭਜਤਹਟ। ਜਵਭਬਦਭਤਭਇਸਅਪਰਲਦਖਰਚਦਨਸਰਹਣਕਰਨਗਦਹਭਈਕਰਟਰਵਲਚਖਰਚਦਨਤਰਜਦਦਰਪਭਲਣਭਕਰਨਗਦ। । ਅਪਰਲਦਰਇਜਭਜਤਹਟ। ਸਟਰਰਚਟਗਦਓਸਰਰਮਜ, ਰਲ. ਬਨਭਮਇਨਕਮਟਕਸਕਰਮਸਨਰ,ਬਬਈ (ਜਦ. ਐਲ. ਕਪਗਰ, ਐਮ. ਰਹਦਭਇਤਸਭਹ, ਅਤਦਜਦ. ਸਰ. ਸਭਹ, ਜਦ. ਜਦ.) ਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸ-ਅਨਰਵਤਰਰਤਆਮਦਨ-ਕਬਪਨਰਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਟ-ਸਪਰਟਕਸ-ਟਸਟ- ਭਭਗਬਰਰਭਜਟ(ਟਕਸਦਸਨਰਰਆਇਤ) ਆਰਡਰ, 1950,ਧਭਰਭ14-ਭਭਰਤਰਆਮਦਨ-ਕਰਐਕਟ, I922 (I922 ਦਭII) ਦਭਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਰਨਦਰਆਸਕਤਰਆ, ਸਟਕਸਨ23 ਏ(I)। ਮਸਲਟਕਣਸਭਲਦਦਰਭਨ, ਕਬਪਨਰਨਦਆਪਣਦਮਸਨਭਫਦਦ60% ਦਰਹਲਦਤਲਕਲਭਭਅਬਸਦਰਵਬਡਨਹਰਤਕਰਤਰਸਰਅਤਦਆਮਦਨਕਰਅਰਧਕਭਰਰਦਸਆਰਭਐਕਟਦਰਧਭਰਭ23 ਏ(1) ਦਤਰਹਤਇਲਕਆਦਸਪਭਸਕਰਤਭਰਗਆਸਰ। ਰਟਰਰਬਊਨਲਦਸਆਰਭਹਭਈਕਰਟਨ'ਭਦਜਦਗਏਸਵਭਲਦਭਜਵਭਬਇਹਸਰਰਕਕਰਸਬਧਤਸਮਦਤਤਦਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਨਅਰਜਹਰਕਬਪਨਰਮਬਰਨਆਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਸਰ, ਭਭਵਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਦਭ25% ਰਹਲਸਭਸਰ, ਦਭਜਵਭਬਨਟਹਰਵਲਚਰਦਲਤਭਰਗਆਸਰ। ਹਦਲਡ, ਰਕਰਕਸਦਕਬਪਨਰਦਡਭਇਰਟਕਟਰਟਦਸਆਰਭਰਕਸਦਵਰਹਕਲਰਡਬਗਨਅਰਜਹਭਨਹਰਤਮਬਰਨਆਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਕਵਦ, ਲਭਗਕਰਨਲਈਸਹਰਟਸਟਨਹਰਤਸਰ। ਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਲਜਬਨਭਮਇਨਕਮਟਕਸਕਰਮਸਨਰ, [1961] 2'S.C.R. 978, ਇਸਕਦਸਤਦਲਭਗਹਕਵਦਗਭ। ਹਦਲਡ, ਇਸਤਕਤਇਲਭਵਭ, ਧਭਰਭ23 ਏ(I) ਦਰਰਵਵਸਥਭਅਤਦਰਵਆਰਖਆਨ25% ਰਵਲਚਲਭਗਕਰਨਲਈਸਭਤਕਤਵਲਡਰਸਰਤਇਹਸਰਰਕਜਨਤਭਨਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਦਲਭਭਦਭਇਕਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਕਣਰਚਭਹਰਦਰਹਟ। ਸਟਕਸਨ23ਏਦਰਸਪਲਸਟਰਕਰਨਲਈਇਹਜਰਗਰਰਹਟਰਕਕਬਪਨਰਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਦਗਏਸਦਅਰਟਨਜਨਤਭਦਕਲਸਮਰਝਆਜਭਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ, ਜਦਕਰ'ਸਟਕਸਨ23ਏਇਸਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਭ। ਭਭਗਬਰਰਭਜਟ(ਟਕਸਦਸਨਰਰਆਇਤ) ਆਰਡਰ, 1950ਦਰਧਭਰਭ14 ਰਵਲਚਰਰਆਇਤਆਰਡਰ, ਉਸਟਸਟਨਨਕਭਰਭਤਮਕਕਰਨਦਰਕਰਸਸਨਹਰਤਕਰਦਭਸਰ, ਇਹਰਸਰਫਇਲਕਕਬਪਨਰਨਲਭਭਪਟਰਦਭਨਕਰਦਭਸਰ, ਰਜਸਉਤਦਧਭਰਭ14 ਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਰਸਰ, ਅਤਦਕਬਪਨਰਉਸਰਰਆਇਤਦਭਲਭਭਲਟਸਕਦਰਸਰ, ਅਤਦਅਜਦਵਰਹਕਰਉਦਸਟਲਈਧਭਰਭ23ਏਦਅਬਦਰਆਸਕਦਰਹਟ। ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ ਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਜਰਲਮਰਟਡਬਨਭਮਇਨਕਮਟਕਸਕਰਮਸਨਰ, ਬਬਈ,[1961] 2 ਐਲਸ.ਸਰ.ਆਰ. 978, ਲਭਗਕਰਤਭ। ਰਸਵਲਅਪਰਲਰਅਰਧਕਭਰਖਦਤਰ: 1957 ਦਰਰਸਵਲਅਪਰਲਨਬ. 380 1956 ਦਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸਸਬਦਰਭਨਰ4 ਰਵਲਚਬਬਦਹਭਈਕਰਟਦ8ਮਭਰਚ1956 ਦਫਟਸਲਦਤਦਆਦਸਤਕਤਅਪਰਲ। ਅਟਨ.ਏ.ਪਭਲਖਰਵਭਲਭ, ਐਸ.ਐਨ. ਐਤਡਲਦ, ਰਭਮਦਸਵਰਨਭਥ, ਜਦ.ਬਰ.ਦਭਦਭਚਨਜਰਅਤਦਪਰ.ਐਲ. ਵਕਹਰਭ, ਅਪਰਲਕਰਤਭਲਈ। ਏ.ਐਨ. ਰਕਟਰਪਭਲਅਤਦਡਰ. ਗਸਪਤਭ, ਉਤਰਦਭਤਭਲਈ। 1960. ਦਸਰ7. ਅਦਭਲਤਦਭਫਟਸਲਭਦਸਆਰਭਰਦਲਤਭਰਗਆਸਰ ਭਰਹਦਭਇਤਸ, ਜਦ.-ਇਹਅਪਰਲ, ਹਭਈਕਰਟਦਸਆਰਭਇਲਕਸਰਟਰਰਫਕਦਟ''ਤਦ, ਸਟਰਰਚਟਗਦਓਸਰਰਮਜਰਲਮਰਟਡਦਸਆਰਭਦਭਇਰਕਰਤਰਗਈਹਟ, ਰਜਸਤਦਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸਐਕਟਦਰਧਭਰਭ23ਏ(ਰਵਲਤਐਕਟ, 1955 ਦਸਆਰਭਇਸਦਰਸਕਧਤਕਤਪਰਹਲਟ) ਮਸਲਟਕਣਸਭਲ, 1948-49 ਦਸਬਧਰਵਲਚਲਭਗਕਰਤਰਗਈਸਰ। ਹਭਈਕਰਟਨ'ਸਵਭਲਕਰਤਭਰਗਆਸਰਰਕਕਰਸਬਧਤਸਮਦਤਤਦਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਨਇਲਕਕਬਪਨਰਮਬਰਨਆਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟ, ਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਸਰ। ਇਸਸਵਭਲਦਭਜਵਭਬਹਭਈਕਰਟਨਦਨਟਹਰਵਲਚਰਦਲਤਭ। ਮਸਲਟਕਣਸਭਲਦਦਰਭਨ, ਕਬਪਨਰਨਦਆਪਣਦਮਸਨਭਫਦਦ60 ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਦਰਹਲਦਤਲਕਲਭਭਅਬਸਦਰਵਬਡਨਹਰਤਕਰਤਰਸਰ, ਅਤਦਭਭਰਤਰਆਮਦਨ-ਕਰਕਭਨਨਦਰਧਭਰਭ23 ਏ(l) ਦਅਧਰਨਇਲਕਆਰਡਰਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸਅਫਸਰਦਸਆਰਭਪਭਸਕਰਤਭਰਗਆਸਰ। ਕਬਪਨਰਨਦਅਪਰਲਰਸਹਭਇਕਕਰਮਸਨਰਨਅਪਰਲਕਰਤਰ, ਰਜਨਟਹਟਨਦਅਪਰਲਖਭਰਜਕਰਰਦਲਤਰ। ਇਸਨਦਅਲਗਦਰਟਰਰਬਊਨਲਨਅਪਰਲਕਰਤਰ, ਪਰਅਸਫਲਰਰਹਭ।ਰਟਰਰਬਊਨਲਨਦ, ਹਭਲਟਰਕ, ਉਪਰਤਸਵਭਲਦਭਹਵਭਲਭਰਦਲਤਭ, ਰਜਸਦਭਜਵਭਬਪਰਹਲਟਹਰਰਕਹਭਰਗਆਹਟ, ਹਭਈਕਰਟਦਸਆਰਭਨਕਭਰਭਤਮਕਰਵਲਚਜਵਭਬਰਦਲਤਭਰਗਆਸਰ। ਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਦਰਜਭਰਰਕਰਤਰ, ਸਬਸਕਟਰਭਈਬਡਅਤਦਅਦਭਇਗਰਸਦਭਪਗਬਜਰਰਵਲਚ60,000 ਸਦਅਰਸਨ, ਜਕਹਦਠਟਰਦਲਤਦਅਨਭਰਵਬਡਦਗਏਸਨ: ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ ਸਪਰਰਮਕਰਟਦਰਆਰਰਪਕਰਟਟ 992 ਇਹਰਨਰਧਭਰਰਤਕਰਨਰਵਲਚਸਵਭਲਪਟਦਭਹਕਇਆਰਕਕਰਜਨਤਭਕਬਪਨਰਰਵਲਚਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਰਲਖਦਰਸਰ, ਭਭਵ, ਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਦਭ25 ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਸਰ। ਇਸਰਬਦਗਨ-ਟਕਸਰਨਰਧਭਰਤਕਰਨਲਈਬਬਦਹਭਈਕਰਟਨਦਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਲਜਬਨਭਮਇਨਕਮਕਰਮਸਨਰ(1) ਰਵਲਚਆਪਣਦਫਟਸਲਦਦਰਪਭਲਣਭਕਰਤਰ, ਅਤਦਰਕਹਭਰਕਰਕਸਦਕਬਪਨਰਦਡਭਇਰਟਕਟਰਟਦਰਕਈਵਰਹਕਲਰਡਬਗਅਰਜਹਰਨਹਰਤਮਬਨਰਜਭਸਕਦਰਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਕਵਦ। ਅਸਰਤਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਲਜਕਦਸ(1) ਰਵਲਚਬਬਦਹਭਈਕਰਟਦਫਟਸਲਦਤਕਤ1957 ਦਰਰਸਵਲਅਪਰਲਨਰ30 ਨਸਰਣਆਹਟ, ਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਅਲਜਫਟਸਲਭਸਣਈਆਹਟ, ਅਤਦਮਬਰਨਆਹਟਰਕਇਹਲਭਗਕਰਨਲਈਸਹਰਪਟਰਰਰਖਆਨਹਰਤਹਟ। ਅਸਰਤਦਰਖਭਸਤਦਣਲਈਸਹਰਟਸਟਰਨਰਧਭਰਤਕਰਨਤਕਤਬਭਅਦ, ਉਕਤਅਪਰਲਦਭਰਰਮਟਡਲਟਰਲਆਹਟ। ਜਕਅਸਰਤਉਥਦਰਕਹਭਹਟਉਹਇਲਥਦਵਰਬਰਭਬਰਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਭਹਟ । ਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਜਦਰਅਪਰਲਰਵਲਚਨਹਰਤਸਗਕਤਇਸਅਪਰਲਰਵਲਚਇਲਕਹਕਰਸਵਭਲਖੜਟਹਭਹਕਇਆਹਟ। ਰਜਵਦਤਰਕਅਸਰਤਪਰਹਲਟਹਰਦਲਰਸਆਹਟ, ਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡ, ਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਦ11,880 ਸਦਅਰਰਲਖਦਭਹਟ। ਜਦਕਰਇਹਸਦਅਰ4,320ਸਦਅਰਟਦਨਭਲਜਨਤਭਦਕਲਹਕਣਲਈਰਕਹਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟ, ਤਟਜਨਤਭਕਲ25ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਹਕਵਦਗਰ, ਭਭਵਦਤਕਬਪਨਰਦਡਭਇਰਟਕਟਰਟਕਲਬਭਕਰਸਦਅਰਹਕਣਜਟਨਭਹਕਣ। ਇਸਲਈਹਭਈਕਰਟਲਈਇਹਰਵਚਭਰਕਰਨਭਜਰਗਰਰਸਰਰਕਕਰਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚ।ਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡਦਸਦਅਰਟਨਜਨਤਭਕਲਰਲਖਣਲਈਰਕਹਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟਹਭਈਕਰਟਨਦਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਦਰਖਲਭਫਰਕਹਭਰਕਸਰਉਹਨਟਨਜਨਤਭਦਸਆਰਭਹਕਲਰਡਬਗਦਰਹਲਸਦਵਜਕਤਨਹਰਤਰਗਰਣਆਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟ, ਅਤਦ, ਸਭਡਦਫਟਸਲਦਰਵਲਚ, ਹਭਈਕਰਟਸਹਰਰਸਲਟਦ'ਤਦਪਹਸਬਰਚਆਹਟ। ਮਭਮਲਦਨਧਭਰਭ23 ਏ(l) ਦਤਰਜਦਪਟਰਭਵਧਭਨਦਤਰਹਤਰਨਰਣਭਕਰਤਭਜਭਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ, ਜਕਇਸਤਰਟਹਟਪੜਟਹਦਭਹਟ: (1) [1953] .. ਆਈ.ਟਰ.ਆਰ. 338. ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ 2 ਐਲਸ.ਸਰ.ਆਰ. ਸਪਰਰਮਕਰਟਦਰਆਰਰਪਕਰਟਟ993 Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) � চাংেদও সুগার িমলস, িল. বনাম আয়কর কিমশনার, বে� (�জ. এল. কাপুর, এম. িহদায়াত��াহ, এবং �জ. িস. শাহ, িবচারপিতগণ) ইনকাম-টা�-অবি�ত আয়-�কা�ানী �যখােন জনসাধারেণর যেথ� �াথ� আেছ - সুপার ট�া�-�ট� অিধগত করার �মতা - পাট� িব ��টস (ট�াে�শন কনেসশন) অড�ার, ১৯৫০, �. ১৪-ভারতীয় আয়কর আইন, ১৯২২ (১৯২২ সােলর ১১), এস. ২৩ক (১)। মূল�ায়ন বছের, �কা�ািন�ট তার মুনাফার ৬০% পিরমােণ লভ�াংশ িবতরণ কেরিন এবং আয়� অিফসার �ারা আইেনর ২৩ ক(১) ধাড়ায় আেদশ পাশ করা হেয়িছল । �াইবু�নােলর �ারা হাইেকােট� উে�খ করা ���ট িছল �য �াসি�ক সমেয় অ�ােসিস �কা�ািনেক িক এমন এক�ট �কা�ািন িহসােব গণ� করা �যেত পাের �যখােন জনসাধারেণর যেথ� �াথ� িছল, অথ�াৎ ২৫% �ভাট �দওয়ার �মতা িছল, উ�র�ট �নিতবাচকভােব �দওয়া হেয়িছল। গৃহীত হয় ,�য এক�ট �কা�ানীর পিরচালকেদর �ারা �কান �হা��ং এক িহসােব িক গণ� করা �যেত পাের �যখােন জনসাধারণ যেথ� �াথ� আেছ এজাতীয় আেবদন করার এই পির�ার জন� স�ঠক পরী�া িছল না। রঘুবংশী িমলস বনাম আয়কর কিমশনার, [১৯৬১] ২ এস. িস. আর. ৯৭৮, এই ��ে� �েযাজ� হেব. গৃহীত হয়, আরও, এই অনুিবিধ এবং s ২৩A(I) এর ব�াখ�া �েয়ােগর সেবাম শত� িছল �য জনসাধারণেক ২৫% �ভা�টং �মতার সামাি�ক সুিবধার অিধকাির হেব । ধারা ২৩ক ব�াখ�া হল �য �কা�ািনর ধারণকৃত �শয়ার�িলেক মেন করেত হেব জনগেণর অিধকৃত �শয়ার ,�ধুমা� যিদ ধারা ২৩ক এর জন� �েয়াগ না হয় । পাট� িব ��ট্স (ট�াে�শন কে�সন) আেদশ ১৯৫০ র (�-১৪ এ ছােড়র আেদশ, �সই পরী�া�ট �নিতবাচক করার �চ�া কেরিন, এ�ট �ধুমা� এক�ট �কা�ািনেক সুিবধা �দান কেরেছ, যা কিলকাতা ১৪ আেবদন কেরেছ, এবং �কা�ানী �সই ছাড় �পেত পাের, এবং এখনও এর মেধ� পড়েত পাের। ধারা ২৩ক অন�ান� উে�েশ�। রঘুবংশী িমলস িলিমেটড বনাম আয়কর কিমশনার, �বাে�, [১৯৬১] ২ এস. িস. আর. ৯৭৮, �েয়াগ করা হেয়েছ। িসিভল আিপল এখিতয়ার: ১৯৫৭ সােলর �দওয়ানী আিপল নং ৩৮০। ১৯৫৬ সােলর আয়কর �রফাের� নং ৪-এ বে� হাইেকােট�র ৮ মাচ�, ১৯৫৬ তািরেখর রায় এবং আেদশ �থেক আিপল। এন.এ. পালিখবালা, এস.এন. অ�া�িল, রােম�র নাথ, �জিব দাদাচান�জ এবং িপ.এল.�ভাহরা, আিপলকারীর পে�৷ উ�রদাতার পে� এ.এন. কৃপাল এবং িড. ��া। ১৯৬০. িডেস�র ৭. আদালেতর রায় �দান করা হয় িবচারপিত-িহদায়াত��াহ, এই আিপল, হাইেকােট�র এক�ট শংসাপে�র িভি�েত, � চ�াংেদও সুগার িমলস, িলিমেটড �ারা দােয়র করা হেয়েছ, যার কােছ. আয়কর আইেনর এস ২৩ ক (অথ� আইন, ১৯৫৫ �ারা এর সংেশাধেনর আেগ) মূল�ায়ন বছর, ১৯৪৮-৪৯ এর ��ে� �েয়াগ করা হেয়িছল। �য ���ট হাইেকােট� উে�খ করা হেয়িছল তা হল �াসি�ক সমেয় অ�ােসিস �কা�ািনেক িক এক�ট �কা�ািন িহসােব গণ� করা �যেত পাের, �যখােন জনসাধারণ যেথ� �াথ� িছল। এ �ে�র জবােব �নিতবাচক জবাব �দন হাইেকাট�। মূল�ায়ন বছের, �কা�ািন ৬০ শতাংশ পয�� লভ�াংশ িবতরণ কেরিন। এর লাভ, এবং .ভারতীয় আয়কর আইেনর এস ২৩ ক(১) ধারার অধীেন আয়কর অিফসার �ারা এক�ট আেদশ পাশ করা হেয়িছল। �কা�ািন আিপল সহকারী কিমশনােরর কােছ আিপল কের, িযিন আিপল�ট খািরজ কেরন। এ�ট পরবত�েত �াইবু�নােল আিপল কের, িক� ব�থ� হয়। �াইবু�নাল অবশ� উপেরা� ���ট উে�খ কেরেছ যা আেগই বলা হেয়েছ, হাইেকাট� তার �নিতবাচক উ�র িদেয়েছ। অ�ােসিস �কা�ািনর জাির করা, সাব�াইব করা এবং পিরেশািধত মূলধন ৬০,০০০ �শয়ার িনেয় গ�ঠত, যা িন��প িবতরণ করা হেয়িছল: (১) �কা�ািনর ১১ জন পিরচালক (২) ম�ােন�জং এেজ�� ফাম� () মাইেসার মােচ�স িলিমেটড (৪) অন�ান� .... ৪১,৫০০ �শয়ার। .... ২, ৩০০ �শয়ার। .... ১১,৮৮০ �শয়ার। .... ৪,৩২০ �শয়ার। ------------- ৬০,০০০ �শয়ার। ------------- �� উেঠিছল, এ�ট িনধ�ারণ করার জন� �য �কা�ানীেত িক সিত� জনসাধারেণর যেথ� �াথ� আেছ, অথ�াৎ ২৫ শতাংশ �ভােটর �মতািধকার আেছ িক না । �বাে� হাইেকাট� এই ত� িনধ�ারেণ রঘুবংশী িমলস বনাম আয়কর কিমশনার ([১]) এর িস�া� অনুসরণ কেরিছল এবং বেলিছল �য �কানও �কা�ািনর পিরচালকেদর �ারা �কানও �হা��ং এমন এক�ট �হা��ং িহসােব গণ� করা যােব না, �যখােন জনসাধারেণর যেথ� �াথ� জিড়ত আেছ । আমরা ১৯৫৭ সােলর৩০ নং িসিভল আপীল �েনিছ রঘুবংশী িমলস মামলায় ([ ১]), �যখােন আজ রায় �ঘাষণা করা হেয়েছ, এবং এ�ট �েয়াগ করার জন� স�ঠক পরী�া নয় বেল ধেরিছ। আেবদন করার জন� স�ঠক পরী�া িনধ�ারেণর পর আমরা উি�িখত আিপল িরমাে� িনেয়িছ। আমরা �সখােন যা বেলিছ তা এখােন সমানভােব �েযাজ�। Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) અસવીકરણ: સ્થાનિક ભાષામાં અનુવાદિત આ ચુકાદા/હુકમનો હેતુ પક્ષકારોને તેમનીભાષામાં જાણકારી ઉપલબ્ધ કરાવવા માત્રનો છે અને તેનો અન્યથા ઉપયોગ થઇ શકશે નહિ.તઅન્ય તમામ વ્યવહારિક તેમજ સરકારી ઉદ્દેશો માટે મૂળ અંગ્રેજી ચુકાદો/હુકમ જ પ્રમાણિઅને માન્ય રહેશે. DISCLAIMER:The translated judgement in vernacular language ismeant for the restricted use of the litigant to understand it in his/her language and may not be used for any other purpose. For allpractical and official purposes the English version of the judgement, shall be authentic and shall hold the field for the purpose ofexecution and implementation.============================================================ શી ચાંગદેવ સુગર મિલસ લિમિટેડ. રધધવિ આવકવેરા આયુકત, બોમબે એમ. ા અને ન જે.(નયાયમૂર્તિ જે. એલ. કપૂર, નયાયમૂર્તિહિદાયતુલયાયમૂર્તિસી. શાહ) આવકવેરો - વહેંચણી વગરની આવક-એવી કંપની કે જેમાં લોકોનેનોંધપાત્ર રસ હોય - સુપર ટેક્સની મૂલ્યાંકન કરવાની સત્તા-કસોટી-ભાગ બીરાજયો (કર રાહત) હુકમ, ૧૯૫૦, ખંડ ૧૪ - ભારતીય આવકવેરાઅધિનિયમ, ૧૯૨૨ (૧૯૨૨ નો ), IIકલમ ૨૩-એ( ).I આકારણી વર્ષ દરમિયાન, કંપનીએ તેના નફાના ૬૦ ટકા સુધીડિવિડન્ડનું વિતરણ કર્યું ન હતું અને આવકવેરાના અધિકારી દ્વારાઅધિનિયમની કલમ ૨૩એ( ) Iહેઠળ આદેશ પસાર કરવામાં આવ્યોહતો.ટ્રિબ્યુનલ દ્વારા હાઈકોર્ટને મોકલવામાં આવેલ પ્રશ્ન એ હતો કે શું સંબંધિતસમયે કરદાતા કંપનીને એવી કંપની ગણી શકાય કે જેમાં લોકોને નોંધપાત્ર રસહોય, એટલે કે ૨૫ ટકા મતદાનની સત્તા ધરાવતી હોય, તેનો જવાબ નકારમાંઆપવામાં આવ્યો હતો. ઠરાવ્યું કે કંપનીના ડિરેક્ટરો દ્વારા કોઈ પણ શેર ન ધરાવતા હોવાથી એવીકસોટી તરીકે ગણી શકાય નહીં કે જેમાં લોકોને નોંધપાત્ર રસ હોય, તે લાગુપાડવા માટે યોગ્ય કસોટી ન હતી. રઘુવંશી મિલ્સ વિરુદ્ધ આવકવેરાનાકમિશનર, [૧૯૬૧] ૨ એસ. સી. આર. ૯૭૮ માં નિર્ધારિત કસોટી આ કેસનેલાગુ પડશે. વધુમાં એવું ઠરાવ્યું કે પરંતુક અને કલમ ૨૩એ( ) Iની સમજૂતી લાગુકરવામાં સર્વોપરી શરત એ હતી કે જનતાને ૨૫ ટકા મતદાન શક્તિમાં લાભદાયીરસ હોવો જોઈએ. કલમ ૨૩એના સ્પષ્ટીકરણમાં જરૂરી હતું કે જો કલમ ૨૩એતેના પર લાગુ ન થાય તો જ કંપની દ્વારા રાખવામાં આવેલા શેરોને જનતા દ્વારારાખવામાં આવેલા શેર તરીકે ગણવા જોઈએ. ભાગ બી રાજયો (કર રાહત) હુકમ,૧૯૫૦ ના ખંડ ૧૪ માં રાહત આદેશમાં તે કસોટીને નકારાત્મક કરવાનો પ્રયાસ કરવામાં આવ્યો ન હતો, તેને માત્ર તે કંપનીને લાભ આપ્યો હતો કે જેને ખંડ ૧૪ લાગુ કરવામાં આવી હતી, અને કંપની તે છૂટનો લાભ લઈ શકે છે, અને હજુ પણઅન્ય હેતુઓ માટે કલમ ૨૩-એ ની અંદર આવી શકે છે. રઘુવંશી મિલ્સ લિમિટેડ વિરુદ્ધ આવકવેરા આયુક્ત, બોમ્બે, [૧૯૬૧]૨ એસ. સી. આર. ૯૭૮ ને લાગુ કરવામાં આવ્યો. દિવાની અપીલીય અધિકારક્ષેત્ર : દીવાની અપીલ નંબર ૩૮૦/૧૯૫૭. આવકવેરાના સંદર્ભ નંબર ૪/૧૯૫૬માં બોમ્બે હાઈકોર્ટના ૮ માર્ચ, ૧૯૬૬નાચુકાદા અને આદેશ સામે અપીલ. અપીલકર્તા વતી એન. એ. પાલખીવાલા, એસ. એન. એન્ડલી, રામેશ્વર નાથ,જે. બી. દાદાચંજી અને પી. એલ. વોહરા. સામાવાળા વતી એ. એન. કૃપાલ અને ડી. ગુપ્તા. ૧૯૬૦. ૭ ડિસેમ્બર. કોર્ટનો ચુકાદો ન્યાયમૂર્તિહિદાયતુલ્લાહ દ્વારાઆપવામાં આવ્યો હતો. આ અપીલ, હાઈકોર્ટના પ્રમાણપત્ર પર, શ્રી ચાંગદેવ સુગર મિલ્સ લિમિટેડ દ્વારા દાખલ કરવામાં આવી છે, જેના પર આવકવેરાઅધિનિયમની કલમ ૨૩એ (નાણાં અધિનિયમ, ૧૯૫૫ દ્વારા તેના સુધારાપહેલા) આકારણી વર્ષ, ૧૯૪૮-૪૯ ના સંદર્ભમાં લાગુ કરવામાં આવી હતી.જેપ્રશ્ન હાઈકોર્ટને મોકલવામાં આવ્યો હતો તે એ હતો કે શું સંબંધિત સમયે કરદાતાકંપનીને એવી કંપની ગણી શકાય કે જેમાં લોકોને નોંધપાત્ર રસ હોય.આસવાલનો જવાબ હાઈકોર્ટે નકારમાં આપ્યો હતો. મૂલ્યાંકન વર્ષ દરમિયાન, કંપનીએ ૬૦ ટકાની હદ સુધી ડિવિડન્ડનુંવિતરણ કર્યું ન હતું. તેના નફાની રકમ અને ભારતીય આવકવેરા અધિનિયમનીકલમ ૨૩એ( ) Iહેઠળનો આદેશ આવકવેરાના અધિકારી દ્વારા પસાર કરવામાંઆવ્યો હતો. કંપનીએ અપીલ સહાયક કમિશનરને અપીલ કરી હતી, જેમણેઅપીલ ફગાવી દીધી હતી. ત્યારબાદ તેણે ટ્રિબ્યુનલમાં અપીલ કરી હતી, પરંતુતે નિષ્ફળ રહી હતી. જોકે, ટ્રિબ્યુનલે ઉપરોક્ત પ્રશ્ો સંદર્ભ આપ્યો હતો, જેનોપહેલેથી જ જણાવ્યા મુજબ, હાઈકોર્ટ દ્વારા નકારમાં જવાબ આપવામાં આવ્યોહતો. કરદાતા કંપનીની ઇશ્યૂ, સબ્સ્ક્રાઇબ અને પેઇડ-અપ મૂડીમાં ૬૦,૦૦૦શેરનો સમાવેશ થતો હતો, જેનું વિતરણ નીચે મુજબ કરવામાં આવ્યું હતુંઃ Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) l?a~huvanshi 1Wills, ttd. v. Co1n'1tissioner of Income-tat'", Bon1flay Hidayatullah J. December 7. 990 [1961] case the provisions of s. 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922, are applicable to t.he petitioners?" The High Court may call for a supplemental state-ment of the case from the Tribunal, if it finds it neces-sary. The appeal is allowed. The respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal. The costs in the High Court shall abide the result. Appeal allowed. SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. ti. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Income-tux-Undistributed income-Company in w/licl• Public' are substantially interested-Powers to assess Super Tax-Test-Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, I9j0, cl. I4-lndian Income-tax Act, I922 (II of I922), s. 23A(I). During the assessment year, the company had not distri-buted dividends to the extent of 60% of its profits and an order under s. 23A(1) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer. The question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court was whether at the relevant time the assessee company could be deemed to be a company in which the public were sub-stantially interested, i.e., held 25% of the voting power, was answered in the negative. Held, that the test that no holding by the Directors of a company could be regarded as one in which the public were sub-stantially interested was not the correct test to apply. The test as laid down in Raghuvanshi Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 978, would apply to this Case. Held, further, that the paramount condition in applying the proviso and the explanation of s. 23A(r) was that the public should be beneficially int.rested in 25% of the voting power. The explanation to s. 23A required that shares held by the company should be considered as held by the public, only if s. 23A did not apply to it. The concession order in cl. 14 of the Part B States \Taxation Concession) Order, 1950, did not seek to negative that test, it only conlerred a benefit on a company, > • to which cl. 14 applied, and the company could avail that con-cession, and still might fall within s. 23A for other purposes. The Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Slwu Changdeo Bombay, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 978, applied. Sugar ~11/s, CIVIL APPELLJ.TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Commisstoner of No. 380 of 1957. r..com•-ta,,, Sugar ~11/s, Ltd. Appeal Commisstoner of r..com•-ta,,, Bombay Appeal from the judgment apd order dated March 8, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 4of1956. Q. A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, J.B. Dad,achanji and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1960. December 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal, on a certificate by Hidayatullah J. the High Court, has been filed by Shree Cbangdeo Sugar Mills, Ltd., to which s. 23A of the Income-tax Act (prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955) was applied in respect of the assessment year, 1948-49. The question which was referred to the High Court was whether at the relevant time the assessee Com-pany could be deemed to be a Company, in which the public were substantially interested. This question was answered in the negative by the High Court. During the assessment year, the Company had not distributed dividends to the extent of ·60 per cent. of its profits, and an order under s. 23A(l) of the Indian Income-tax Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer. The Company appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. It next appealed to the Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal, however, referred the above question which, as already stated, was answered in the negative by the High Court. The issued, subscribed a.nd paid-up capital ef the assessee Company consisted of 60,000 shares, which were distributed as follows: Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) SCRసర్వోన్నత న్యాయస్థాన నివేదికలు990 ్శ్రీచేంజ్డియోషుగర్మిలస్లిమిటెడ 1960వర్సెస్డిసెంబర్ ది కమిషనర్ ఆఫ్ ఇన్కమటాక్స్, బాంబే7 (జె.ఎల. కపూర్, ఎం. హిదాయతుల్లా, మరియుజె.సి. షా, న్యాయమూర్తులు)సివిలఅప్పీలనం. 380/ 1957 1.అసెస్‌మెంట సంవత్సరంలో, కంపెనీ తన లాభాలలో60% మేరకుడివిడెండ‌లను పంపిణీ చేయలేదు మరియు చట్టంలోని సెక్షన్.23ఏ(I) కింద ఒక ఆర్డర్‌ను ఆదాయపు పన్ను అధికారి ఆమోదించారు.ట్రిబ్యునల హైకోర్టుకు సూచించిన ప్రశ్న ఏమిటంటే, సంబంధితసమయంలో అసెస్సీ కంపెనీని ప్రజలకు గణనీయమైన ఆసక్తి ఉన్న,అంటే 25% ఓటింగ్ శక్తి ఉన్న కంపెనీగా పరిగణించవచ్చా అనేదానికిప్రతికూలంగా సమాధానం ఇవ్వబడింది. 2.ఒక కంపెనీ డైరెక్టర్ల హోల్డింగ్‌ని పబ్లిక్‌గా ఆసక్తిగాపరిగణించే పరీక్షను దరఖాస్తు చేయడానికి సరైన పరీక్ష కాదనిపేర్కొంది. రఘువంశీ మిల్స్ వర్సెస్ కమీషనర్ ఆఫ్ ఇన్ కం టాక్స్, [1961] ఎస్ సి ఆర్ 978 లో నిర్దేశించిన పరీక్ష ఈ కేసుకువర్తిస్తుందని పేర్కొంది. 3.ఇంకా, సెక్షన్.23ఏ(I) యొక్క వివరణను వర్తింపజేయడంలోప్రధానమైన షరతు ఏమిటంటే,ప్రజలు 25%ఓటింగ్ శక్తిపైప్రయోజనకరంగా ఆసక్తి కలిగి ఉండాలి. సెక్షన్.23ఏ కి వివరణప్రకారం కంపెనీ కలిగి ఉన్న షేర్లు సెక్షన్.23ఏ కి వర్తించనిపక్షంలో మాత్రమే ప్రజల వద్ద ఉన్న షేర్లను పరిగణించాలి.పార్టబి స్టేట్స్ (పన్ను రాయితీ)ఆర్డర్, 1950లోనిక్లా.14లోని రాయితీ ఆర్డర్, ఆ పరీక్షను ప్రతికూలంగా ఉంచడానికిప్రయత్నించలేదు, ఇది క్లా.14 వర్తింపజేసిన కంపెనీకి మాత్రమేప్రయోజనాన్ని అందించింది మరియు కంపెనీ దానిని పొందవచ్చు.రాయితీ, ఇంకా ఇతర ప్రయోజనాల కోసం సెక్షన్.23ఏ పరిధిలోకిరావచ్చు. 4.రఘువంశీ మిల్స్ వర్సెస్ కమీషనర్ ఆఫ్ ఇన్ కం టాక్స్,బాంబే[1961] ఎస్ సి ఆర్ 978, [1961]ఎస్ సి ఆర్ 978, వర్తించింది. 5.సివిల అప్పీల అధికార పరిధి: సివిల అప్పీల1957 లోని నం.380. ఆదాయపు పన్ను రెఫరెన్స్ నంబర్ 4లో బాంబే హైకోర్టు మార్చి8, 1956 నాటి తీర్పు మరియు ఆర్డర్ నుండి అప్పీల. అప్పీలుదారు కోసం ఎన్.ఏ.పాల్ఖివాలా,ఎస్.ఎన్.ఆండ్లే,రామేశ్వర్ నాథ, జె.బి. దాదాఛాంజీ మరియు పి.ఎల. వోహ్రా. ప్రతివాది తరపున ఏ.ఎన్. క్రిపాల మరియు డి. గుప్తా. 6.డిసెంబర్ 7, 1960. కోర్టు తీర్పును హిదయతుల్లా, జె. -వెలువరించారుఈ అప్పీల, హైకోర్టు సర్టిఫికేట‌పై, శ్రీ చాంగ్‌డియో సుగలమిల్స్, లిమిటెడ ద్వారా దాఖలు చేయబడింది, దీనికి సంబంధించిఆదాయపు పన్ను చట్టం (ఫైనాన్స్ యాక్ట, 1955 ద్వారా దానిసవరణకు ముందు) ఎస్.23ఏ అంచనా సంవత్సరం, 1948-49 కి సంబంధించివర్తించబడింది.హైకోర్టుకు సూచించబడిన ప్రశ్న ఏమిటంటే,దీనిలో ప్రజలు గణనీయమైన ఆసక్తిని కలిగి ఉన్న సంబంధిత సమయంలోఅసెస్సీ కంపెనీని ఒక కంపెనీగా పరిగణించవచ్చా. ఈ ప్రశ్నకుహైకోర్టు ప్రతికూలంగా సమాధానం ఇచ్చింది. 7.అసెస్‌మెంట సంవత్సరంలో, కంపెనీ దాని లాభాల్లో60 శాతంమేరకు డివిడెండ‌లను పంపిణీ చేయలేదు మరియు ఆదాయపు పన్నుఅధికారి సెక్షన్.23ఏ(I) కింద ఆర్డర్ ఆమోదించారు.కంపెనీ అప్పీల అసిస్టెంటకమీషనర్‌కి అప్పీలచేసింది,ఆయన అప్పీల‌నుతోసిపుచ్చాడు.ఇది తదుపరి ట్రిబ్యునల‌ను ఆశ్రయించింది, కానీఫలించలేదు.అయితే, ట్రిబ్యునల, పై ప్రశ్నను ప్రస్తావించింది,ఇప్పటికే పేర్కొన్నట్లుగా, హైకోర్టు ప్రతికూలంగా సమాధానంఇచ్చింది. 8.అసెస్సీ కంపెనీ యొక్క జారీ చేయబడిన, సబ‌స్క్రయిబచేయబడిన మరియు చెల్లించిన మూలధనం 60,000 షేర్లను కలిగి ఉంది,అవి ఈ క్రింది విధంగా పంపిణీ చేయబడ్డాయి: ---------------------- ---------------- 9.కంపెనీపై ప్రజలకు గణనీయమైన ఆసక్తి ఉందోలేదోనిర్ణయించడంలో ప్రశ్న తలెత్తింది, అంటే 25 శాతం ఓటింగ్ శక్తికలిగి ఉందని పేర్కొనడం.బొంబాయి హైకోర్టు ఈ అంశాన్ని రఘువంశీమిల్స్వర్సెస్ కమీషనర్ ఆఫ్ ఇన్కంటాక్స్[(1953) 24I.T.R. 338)]లో తన నిర్ణయాన్ని అనుసరించింది మరియు కంపెనీడైరెక్టర్ల హోల్డింగ్‌ను ప్రజలు గణనీయమైన ఆసక్తి ఉన్నవాటిగా పరిగణించలేమని పేర్కొంది.ఈరోజు తీర్పు వెలువడినరఘువంశీ మిల్స్ కేసులో బొంబాయి హైకోర్టు నిర్ణయం నుండి1957 నాటి సివిల అప్పీల నం. 30ని మేము విన్నాము మరియుదరఖాస్తు చేయడానికి ఇది సరైన పరీక్ష కాదని మేమునిర్ధారించాము.దరఖాస్తు చేయడానికి సరైన పరీక్షనురూపొందించిన(సెట) చేసిన తర్వాత, మేము పేర్కొన్న అప్పీల‌నురిమాండచేసాము.అక్కడ మనం చెప్పినది ఇక్కడ కూడావర్తిస్తుంది. Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) The issued, subscribed a.nd paid-up capital ef the assessee Company consisted of 60,000 shares, which were distributed as follows: 1960 (1) 11 Directors of the Company .. . 41,500 shares. (2) The Managing Agency Firm 2,300 shares. Shree Changden Sugar Mills, Ltd. (3) Mysore Merchants Ltd. . . . 11,880 shares. v. (4) Others 4,320 shares. Commissioner of I mo me-tax, 60,000 shares. Bombay Hidayatullah ]. The question arose in determining .whether the pub-lic were substantially interested in the Company, that is to say, held 25 per cent. of the voting power. The Bombay High Court in determining this point follow-ed its decision in Raghuvanshi Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax (' ), and held that no holding by the Directors of a company could be regarded as one in which the public were substantially interested. We have heard Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1957 from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Raghuvan-shi Mills case ([1]), in which judgment has been pro-nounced today, and have held that that is not the correct test to apply. We have remanded the said appeal, after setting out the .correct test to apply. What we have said there applies equally here. There is yet another question, which arose in this · appeal but not in the appeal of the Raghuvanshi Mills. As we have already stated, Mysore Merchants Ltd., held 11,880 shares of the assessee Company. If these shares could be said to be held by the public along with 4,3~0 shares, the public would be holding 25 per cent of the voting power, whether or not th_e Directors of the Company held the rest of the shares. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to consider whether the shares held by Mysore Merchants Ltd., could be said to be held by the public. The High Court held against the assessee Company that they could not be counted as part of the holding by the public, and, in our judgment, the High Court has reached the correct conclusion. The matter has to be judged under the third pro-viso to s. 23A(l), which read as follows: "Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to any company in which the public are (1) [19,3] .. I.T.R. 338. r _.,. __ 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 993 .i. substantially interested or to a subsidiary company of r96o such a. company if the whole of the share capital of -such subsidiary com_Pany is held by the parent com- s~.h·:: z~~;.'~1~. pany or by the nommees thereof. c v. c Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, Commissioner of -a company shall be deemed to be a company in Income-las, which the public are substantially interested if shares Bombay of the company· (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, whether with or without a further Hidayatullah J. right to participate in profits) carrying not less than twenty-five per cent of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditio-nally by, and are at the end of the previous year beneficially held by, the public (not including a com-pany to which the provisions of this sub-section apply), and if any such shares have in the course of such previous year been the subject of dealings in any stock exchange in British India or are in fact freely transferable by the holders to other members of the public." In applying the proviso and the Explanation, we have to give effect to the words "not including a com-pany to which the provisions of this sub-section apply", and have to determine whether Mysore Mer-chants Ltd., is a. Company, to which the provisions of s. 23A can be said to be applicable. , Learned counsel for the assessee Company contends that in deciding this, we have to be satisfied on three points, which he summarises as follows: (a) The public should not be substantially inte-rested in that Company; (b) It must have assessable profits for the rele-vant assessment year; and (c) It must not have distributed 60 per cent of its net assessable profits. Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) 23 A യുടെ കീഴിൽ വരാം. രഘുവംശി മിൽസ് ലിമിറ്റഡ് v. ആദായ നികുതി കമ്മീഷണർ,ബോംബെ, [1961] 2 എസ്.സി.ആർ. 978, പ്രയയോഗിച്ചു.സിവിൽ അപീൽ ന്യാധികാരം : 1957- സിവിൽ അപീൽ നമർ 380. ്പയാലെ്പ1956-ലെ ആദായനികുതി റഫറൻസ് നമ്പർ 4 ൽ ബോംബെ ഹൈക്ക്കോടതിയുടെ മാർചച 8,1956 ലെ വിധിയിന്മേലും ഉത്തരവിന്മേലുമുള്ള അപ്പീൽ.അപ്പീലുകാരന് വേണ്ടി എൻ.എ. പൽഖിവാല, എസ്.എൻ. ആൻഡ്‌ലി, രാമേശ്വർ നാഥ്, ജെ.ബി. ദാദാചാൻജി,പി.എൽ. വവോറ. എതിർകക്ഷിക്കായി എ.എൻ.കൃപാൽ, ഡി.ഗുപ്ത ജസിസ് ഹിദായതള.1960 ഡിസംബർ 7. കോടതി വിധിന്യായം പ്രസ്താവിച്ചത് ഹൈക്ക്കോടതിയുടെ സാകഷപത്രത്തത്തോടെയുള്ള ഈ അപ്പീൽ, ശ്രീ ചാങ്‌ഡിയയോ ഷുഗർമിൽസ് ലിമിറ്റഡ് ആണ് സമർപ്പിച്ചത്. 1948-49 കണക്കെടുപപ വർഷവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെടആദായനികുതി നിയമത്തിന്റെ വകുപപ 23 എ(1955-ലെ ധനകാര്യ നിയമം ഭേദഗതി ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് മുമപ) അതിന്മേൽ പ്രയയോഗിച്ചു.ഹൈകോടതിയിലേകക സമർപ്പിച്ച ചോദ്യം എന്നത്, പ്രസക്തമായ സമയതനികുതിദായകനായ സ്ഥാപനം, പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾകക കാര്യമായ താൽപ്പര്യമുള്ള ഒരുസ്ഥാപനമായി കണക്കാക്കാമമോ എന്നതായിരുന്നു. ഈ ചോദ്യത്തിന് ഹൈക്ക്കോടതിനിഷേധാത്മക മറുപടി നൽകി. കണക്കെടുപപ വർഷത്തിൽ, സ്ഥാപനം അതിന്റെ ലാഭത്തിന്റെ60 ശതമാനം വരെ ലാഭവിഹിതമായി വിതരണം ചെയ്തിരുന്നില്ല. ഇനതൻ ആദായ നികുതിനിയമത്തിന്റെ വകുപപ 23 എ(l) പ്രകാരം ഒരു ഉത്തരവ് ആദായനികുതി ഓഫീസർപുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചു. സ്ഥാപനം അപ്പെല്ലററ അസിസ്റ്റനറ കമ്മീഷണർകക അപ്പീൽ നൽകുകയുംഅദ്ദേഹം അപ്പീൽ തള്ളുകയും ചെയ്തു. തുടർനന നീതിന്യായക്ക്കോടതിയിൽ സ്ഥാപനം അപ്പീൽ നൽകിയെങ്കിലും അതും വിജയിച്ചില്ല.എന്നിരുന്നാലും, നീതിന്യായകോടതി, മുകളിൽ ഉയർത്തിയ ചോദ്യം സമർപ്പിക്ുയും, മുൻപ്പറഞ്ഞതുപപോലെ, ഹൈക്ക്കോടതി നിഷേധാത്മകമായി ഉത്തരം നൽകുകയും ചെയ്തു.നികുതിദായകനായ സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ വിതരണം ചെയ്ിലും സമ്മതിച്ച്ചൊപ്പുവച്ചത്തിലുംകൊടുത്തു തിർത്ത ഓഹരി മൂലധനത്തിലും 60,000 ഓഹരികൾ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്നു, അവ ഇനിപ്പറയുന്നരീതിയിൽ വിതരണം ചെയ്തു: 1961-2-990-995 4 പൊതുജനങ്ങൾകക സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ കാര്യമായ താൽപ്പര്യമുണ്ടണ്ടോ എനന നിർണ്ണയിക്കുന്നതിനെസംബന്ധിച്ച ചോദ്യം ഉയർന്നു, അതായത്, വവോട്ടിംഗ് അധികാരത്തിന്റെ 25 ശതമാനംകൈവശം വച്ചിരിക്കുന്നതിൽ. ബോംബെ ഹൈക്ക്കോടതി, ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ തീർപകല്പിക്കുന്നതിനായി രഘുവംശി മിൽസ് v ആദായനികുതി കമ്മീഷണർ കേസിലെ സ്വന്തംതീരുമാനം പിന്തുടരുകയും ഒരു സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ ഡയറക്‌ടർമാർ അവരുടെ കൈവശംഓഹരികൾ വച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരു സ്ഥാപനവും പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾകക കാര്യമായ താൽപ്പര്യമുള്ളഒന്നായി കണക്കാക്കാനാവില്ല എനന പ്രസ്താവിക്ുയും ചെയ്തു. രഘുവംശി മിൽസ് കേസിലെബോംബെ ഹൈക്ക്കോടതിയുടെ വിധിയിൽ വെളിച്ചത്തിലാണ് 1957 ലെ 30-ാം നമ്പർ സിവിൽഅപ്പീലെ വാദം കോടതി കേട്ടത്. ഇതിൽ ഇനന വിധി പ്രസ്താവിച്ചു. അതല്ല ശരിയായപരിശശോധന എനന പ്രസ്താവിച്ചു.പ്രയയോഗിക്കാനുള്ള ശരിയായ പരിശശോധന വിശദീകരിച്ചതിനു ശേഷം കോടതി പ്രസ്അപ്പീൽ മടക്കി അയചച‌ .. കോടതി അവിടെ പറഞ്ഞത് ഇവിടെയും ബാധകമാണ്. എന്നാൽ ഈ അപ്പീലിൽ ഉയർന്നതും,രഘുവംശി മിൽസിന്റെ അപ്പീലിൽ ഇല്ലാതിരുന്നതുമായ മറ്ററ്റൊരു ചോദ്യമുണട. കോടതിഇതിനകം പ്രസ്താവിച്ചതുപപോലെ, മൈസൂർ മർച്ചനറസ് ലിമിറ്റഡ്, നികുതിദായകനായസ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ സ്ഥാപനംയുടെ 11,880 ഓഹരികൾ കൈവശം വച്ചിരുന്നു. ഈ ഓഹരികൾ4320 ഓഹരികളളോടടൊപ്പം പപൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെ കൈവശമാനുണ്ടായിരുന്നതെങ്കിൽ വവോട്ടിംഗ് 25,അധികാരത്തിന്റെ ശതമാനം പപൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെ കൈവശമായിരുന്സ്ഥാപനത്തിൻറെ ഡയറക്ടർമാർ ബാക്കി ഓഹരികൾ കൈവശം വച്ചിരുന്നാലും ഇല്ലെങ്കിലും.അതിനാൽ, മൈസൂർ മെർച്ചൻറ്സ് ലിമിറ്റഡ്ഡിന്റെ കൈവശമുള്ള ഓഹരികൽ പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾനകൈവശം വച്ചിരിക്കുന്നതാണെന പറയാമമോ എന്നത് ഹൈക്ക്കോടതി പരിഗണിക്കേണ്ടതായിവന്നു. ഹൈക്ക്കോടതി, കണക്കെടുപപ സ്ഥാപനത്ിനെതിരെ അവ പപൊതുജനങ്ങൾ കൈവശംവയ്ക്കുന്നതിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി കണക്കാക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ല എനന പ്രസ്താവിച്ചു. കോടതിയുടെവിധിന്യായത്തിൽ, ഹൈക്ക്കോടതി സപീംകോടതി റിപ്ോർട്ടുകൾ 1961-2-990-995 5 Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) ਮਭਮਲਦਨਧਭਰਭ23 ਏ(l) ਦਤਰਜਦਪਟਰਭਵਧਭਨਦਤਰਹਤਰਨਰਣਭਕਰਤਭਜਭਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ, ਜਕਇਸਤਰਟਹਟਪੜਟਹਦਭਹਟ: (1) [1953] .. ਆਈ.ਟਰ.ਆਰ. 338. ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ 2 ਐਲਸ.ਸਰ.ਆਰ. ਸਪਰਰਮਕਰਟਦਰਆਰਰਪਕਰਟਟ993 "ਅਲਗਦਬਸਰਤਦਰਕਇਹਉਪ-ਧਭਰਭਰਕਸਦਅਰਜਹਰਕਬਪਨਰ'ਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਕਵਦਗਰਰਜਸਰਵਲਚ'ਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਕਵਦਜਟਅਰਜਹਰਰਕਸਦਕਬਪਨਰਦਰਸਹਭਇਕਕਬਪਨਰਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਕਵਦਗਰ, ਜਦਕਰਇਸਦਨਭਮਜਦਅਰਜਹਰਸਹਭਇਕਕਬਪਨਰਦਰਪਗਰਰਸਦਅਰਪਗਬਜਰਮਗਲਕਬਪਨਰਜਟਕਬਪਨਰਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਰਗਈਹਟ। ਸਪਲਸਟਰਕਰਨ-ਇਸਉਪ-ਧਭਰਭਦਉਦਸਲਈ, - ਇਲਕਕਬਪਨਰਨਇਲਕਅਰਜਹਰਕਬਪਨਰਮਬਰਨਆਜਭਵਦਗਭਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਟਜਦਕਰਕਬਪਨਰਦਸਦਅਰ(ਸਦਅਰਨਭਹਕਣਕਰਕਦਲਭਭਅਬਸਦਰਇਲਕਰਨਸਚਤਦਰਦਹਲਕਦਭਰਹਕਣ,ਭਭਵਦਤਰਕਇਲਕਦਨਭਲਜਟਰਬਨਟਮਸਨਭਰਫਆਰਵਲਚਰਹਲਸਭਲਟਣਦਭਹਕਰਅਰਧਕਭਰ) ਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਦਭ25 ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਤਕਤਘਲਟਨਹਰਤਰਲਖਣਵਭਲਦਲਟਨਰਬਨਟਸਰਤਅਲਭਟਕਰਤਭਰਗਆਹਟ, ਜਟਰਬਨਟਸਰਤਪਟਰਭਪਤਕਰਤਭਰਗਆਹਟ, ਅਤਦਰਪਛਲਦਸਭਲਦਅਬਤਰਵਲਚਲਭਭਦਭਇਕਤਦਰ'ਤਦਜਨਤਭਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਰਖਆਰਗਆਹਟ( ਕਬਪਨਰਰਜਸ'ਤਦਇਸਉਪ-ਧਭਰਭਦਉਪਬਧਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਹਨ, ਇਸਰਵਲਚਸਭਮਲਨਹਰਤਹਟ) ਅਤਦਜਦਕਰਅਰਜਹਦਕਈਸਦਅਰ-ਅਰਜਹਦਰਪਛਲਦਸਭਲਦਦਰਭਨਰਬਟਰਰਟਸਭਭਰਤਰਵਲਚਰਕਸਦਸਟਭਕਐਕਸਚਦਤਜਰਵਲਚਲਟਣਦਣਦਭਰਵਸਭਰਹਦਹਨਜਟਅਸਲਰਵਲਚਧਭਰਕਟਦਸਆਰਭਜਨਤਭਦਦਗਜਦਮਟਤਬਰਟਨਸਤਬਤਰ।ਰਗਪਰਵਲਚਤਬਦਰਲਕਰਤਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟ "ਪਟਰਭਵਰਸਕਅਤਦਸਪਲਸਟਰਕਰਨਨਲਭਗਕਰਦਸਮਦਤ, ਸਭਨਉਸਕਬਪਨਰਨਸਭਮਲਨਹਰਤਕਰਨਭਰਜਸ'ਤਦਇਸਉਪ-ਸਟਕਸਨਦਉਪਬਧਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਹਨ" ਦਸਬਦਟਨਪਟਰਭਭਵਤਕਰਨਭਹਕਵਦਗਭ, ਅਤਦਇਹਰਨਰਧਭਰਤਕਰਨਭਹਕਵਦਗਭਰਕਕਰਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡ, ਇਲਕਕਬਪਨਰਹਟ, ਰਜਸਨਧਭਰਭ23 ਏਦਰਆਰਵਵਸਥਭਵਟਲਭਗਹਕਣਲਈਰਕਹਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟ। ਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਲਈਰਸਲਰਖਅਤਵਕਰਲਦਲਰਲਰਦਬਦਭਹਟਰਕਇਹਫਟਸਲਭ'ਕਰਨਲਈ, ਸਭਨਰਤਬਨਰਬਦਗਆਤਦਸਬਤਟਹਕਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ, ਰਜਸਦਭਉਹਹਦਠਰਲਖਦਅਨਭਰਸਭਰਰਦਬਦਭਹਟ: (a) ਜਨਤਭਨਉਸਕਬਪਨਰਰਵਲਚਕਭਫਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਨਹਰਤਹਕਣਰਚਭਹਰਦਰ;(b) ਇਸਰਵਲਚਸਰਧਤਮਸਲਟਕਣਸਭਲਲਈਮਸਲਟਕਣਯਕਗਮਸਨਭਫਭਹਕਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ; ਅਤਦ (c) ਇਸਨਦਆਪਣਦਸਲਧਮਸਲਟਕਣਯਕਗਲਭਭਦਭ60 ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਵਬਰਡਆਨਹਰਤਹਕਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ।ਉਹਦਲਰਲਰਦਬਦਭਹਟਰਕਜਦਕਤਤਲਕਇਹਰਤਬਨਸਰਤਟਪਗਰਰਆਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਰਆ, ਸਟਕਸਨ'23ਏਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਕਵਦਗਭ, ਅਤਦਇਹਰਕਇਸਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਦਗਏਸਦਅਰਜਨਤਭਦਕਲਸਮਝਦਜਭਣਗਦ। ਉਹਦਲਸਦਭਹਟਰਕਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡ,ਦਰਸਰਧਤਮਸਲਟਕਣਸਭਲਰਵਲਚਕਈਮਸਲਟਕਣਯਕਗਆਮਦਨਨਹਰਤਸਰਅਤਦਉਸਨਨਸਕਸਭਨਹਕਇਆਸਰ, ਇਸਲਈ, ਸਰਤਟ(ਬਰ) ਅਤਦ(ਸਰ) ਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਰਆਸਨ, ਅਤਦਉਹਧਭਰਭ23ਏਉਸਕਬਪਨਰ'ਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਰਹਟ। ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ 994 ਸਪਰਰਮਕਰਟਦਰਆਰਰਪਕਰਟਟ[1961]ਸਭਡਰਰਭਏਰਵਲਚ, ਸਭਤਕਤਵਲਡਰਸਰਤਇਹਹਟਰਕਉਸਕਬਪਨਰਰਵਲਚਵਰਜਨਤਭਦਰਵਕਰਟਬਗਸਕਤਰਦ25 ਪਟਰਤਰਸਤਰਵਲਚਲਭਭਦਭਇਕਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਕਣਰਚਭਹਰਦਰਹਟ, ਅਤਦਸਭਡਦਸਭਹਮਣਦਇਹਮਬਰਨਆਰਗਆਸਰਰਕਇਹਕਈਜਨਤਕਕਬਪਨਰਨਹਰਤਹਟ, ਪਰਇਲਕਰਨਲਜਰਕਬਪਨਰਹਟ, ਅਤਦਇਹਰਕ, ਇਸਲਈ, ਜਨਤਭਦਰਉਸਕਬਪਨਰਰਵਲਚਕਈਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਨਹਰਤਸਰ। ਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਦਗਏਸਦਅਰ, ਸਪਲਸਟਰਕਰਨਰਵਲਚਸਭਮਲਬਖਲਰਦਮਲਦਨਜਰ, ਇਲਕਅਰਜਹਰਹਕਲਰਡਬਗਦਰਗਪਰਵਲਚਨਹਰਤਰਗਰਣਆਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਦਰਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਟ। ਇਸਲਈ, ਇਹਰਬਦਗਹਭਈਕਰਟਦਰਨਰਣਭਲਈਖਸਟਹਭਨਹਰਤਹਕਵਦਗਭ, ਜਦਕਤਹਭਈਕਰਟਦਸਆਰਭਦਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਰਮਲਜਰਲਮਰਟਡਬਨਭਮਇਨਕਮ-ਟਕਸਕਰਮਸਨਰ, ਬਬਦ(1) ਰਵਲਚਸਭਡਦਰਨਰਰਖਣਟਦਰਰਦਸਨਰਰਵਲਚਸਵਭਲ'ਤਦਮਸੜਰਵਚਭਰਕਰਤਭਜਭਵਦਗਭ। , ਅਲਜਫਟਸਲਭਕਰਤਭ. ਮਸਲਟਕਣਕਬਪਨਰਲਈਰਸਲਰਖਅਤਵਕਰਲਨਦਇਹਵਰਦਲਰਲਰਦਲਤਰਰਕਭਭਗਬਰਰਭਜ(ਟਕਸਦਸਨਰਰਆਇਤਟ) ਆਰਡਰ, 1950 ਦਰਧਭਰਭ14 ਦਮਲਦਨਜਰ,'ਸਟਕਸਨ23 ਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਕਰਤਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਏਦਉਪਬਧਟਨਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਹਟ। :ਉਹਧਭਰਭਇਸਤਰਟਹਟਪੜਟਹਦਰਹਟ "14. ।-ਪਟਰਭਈਵਦਟਕਬਪਨਰਆਦਸਆਰਭਲਭਭਅਬਸਦਰਵਬਡਦਰਲਕੜ ਐਕਟਦਸਟਕਸਨ23ਏਦਉਪਬਧਰਨਯਤਰਦਨਤਕਤਪਰਹਲਟਖਤਮਹਕਣਵਭਲਦਰਕਸਦਵਰਰਪਛਲਦਸਭਲਦਮਸਨਭਰਫਆਅਤਦਲਭਭਟਦਸਬਧਰਵਲਚਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਕਰਤਦਜਭਣਗਦਜਦਕਤਤਲਕਰਕਰਭਜਦਕਭਨਨਰਵਲਚਇਸਨਭਲਸਰਧਤਕਈਰਵਵਸਥਭਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਰ।" ਇਹਰਰਆਇਤਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡਲਈਖਸਰਹਕਵਦਗਰ, ਜਦਕਰਇਹਕਲਕਜ14ਦਰਆਸਰਤਟਨਸਬਤਟਕਰਦਰਹਟ। ਇਹ, ਹਭਲਟਰਕ, ਸਟਕਸਨ23ਏਦਰਅਰਜਰਤਕਤਰਵਗਭੜਨਹਰਤਸਕਦਭ। ਇਹਰਨਰਧਭਰਤਕਰਨਲਈਰਕਕਰਇਸਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਦਗਏਸਦਅਰਟਨਉਹਨਟਦਰਗਪਰਵਲਚਵਰਣਨਕਰਤਭਜਭਸਕਦਭਹਟਰਜਸਰਵਲਚਜਨਤਭਨਰਕਸਦਹਕਰਕਬਪਨਰਰਵਲਚਲਭਭਦਭਇਕਰਦਲਚਸਪਰਹਟਸਪਲਸਟਰਕਰਨਇਹਮਬਗਕਰਦਭਹਟਰਕਰਕਸਦਕਬਪਨਰ । ਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਖਦਗਏਸਦਅਰਟਨਜਨਤਭਦਸਆਰਭਰਲਰਖਆਰਗਆਸਮਰਝਆਜਭਣਭਚਭਹਰਦਭਹਟ,ਜਦਕਰਧਭਰਭ23A ਇਸ'ਤਦਲਭਗਨਹਰਤਹਸਬਦਭਹਟ। ਰਰਆਇਤਟਆਰਡਰਇਸਟਸਟਨਨਕਭਰਭਤਮਕਕਰਨਦਰਕਰਸਸਨਹਰਤਕਰਦਭ; ਇਹਰਸਰਫਰਕਸਦਕਬਪਨਰਨਲਭਭਪਟਰਦਭਨ'ਕਰਦਭਹਟ, ਰਜਸਤਦਧਭਰਭ14 ਲਭਗਹਸਬਦਰਹਟ। ਮਟਸਗਰਮਰਚਤਸਰਲਮਰਟਡ, ਉਸਰਰਆਇਤਦਭਲਭਭਲਟਣਦਯਕਗਹਕਸਕਦਭਹਟ, ਅਤਦਅਜਦਵਰਹਕਰਉਦਸਟਲਈਧਭਰਭ23A ਦਅਬਦਰਆਉਤਦਭਹਟ। (1) [1961] 2 ਐਲਸ.ਸਰ.ਆਰ. 978 ਰਨਸਚਲਹਟਸਰ, ਅਨਸਵਭਦਕਦਸਆਰਭਅਨਸਵਭਦਅਤਦਟਭਈਪਕਰਤਭਰਗਆ ਅਪਰਲਦਰਇਜਭਜਤਰਦਲਤਰਜਟਦਰਹਟ, ਅਤਦਰਘਗਵਬਸਰਆਫਰਮਜਕਦਸ(1)ਰਵਲਚਸਭਡਦਫਟਸਲਦਰਵਲਚਰਨਰਰਖਣਟਦਰਰਕਸਨਰਰਵਲਚਸਵਭਲਦਭਫਟਸਲਭਕਰਨਲਈਕਦਸਹਭਈਕਰਟਨਭਦਜਰਦਲਤਭਜਟਦਭਹਟ। ਰਜਵਦਤਰਕਕਦਸਰਰਮਟਡ'ਤਦਹਟ, ਇਸਅਪਰਲਦਖਰਚਦਜਵਭਬਦਹਦਸਆਰਭਅਦਭਕਰਤਦਜਭਣਗਦ, ਪਰਹਭਈਕਰਟਰਵਲਚਹਕਣਵਭਲਦਖਰਚਦਨਤਰਜਦਦਰਪਭਲਣਭਕਰਨਗਦ। ਅਪਰਲਦਰਇਜਭਜਤਰਦਲਤਰਗਈ। ਹਰਕਗਲਸਇਬਸਕਰਟਤਸਦਵਰਕਰ ਕਬਪਨਰ, ਰਲਮਰਟਡ ਬਨਭਮ ਹਰਕਗਲਸਇਬਸਕਰਟਤਸਕਬਪਨਰ, ਰਲਰਮਟਦਡ, ਕਲਕਲਤਭ (ਪਰ. ਬਰ. ਗਜਤਰਗੜਕਰ, ਅਤਦਕਦ. ਐਨ. ਵਟਚਗ, ਕਦ. ਸਰ. ਦਭਸਗਸਪਤਭ, ਜਦ. ਜਦ.) ਉਦਯਕਰਗਕਝਗੜਭ-ਬਕਨਸਦਭਦਭਅਵਭ-ਆਮਬਰਮਭਕਭਰਕਬਭਰ-ਸਬਦਰਭਦਰਵਟਧਤਭ-ਉਦਯਕਰਗਕਰਵਵਭਦਐਕਟ, 1947 (1947 ਦਭ14), ਸਟਕਸਨ10(I)-ਬਰਮਭਐਕਟ,1938 (IV ਦਭ1938), ਸਟਕਸਨ31A(I)(c) , ਪਰਵਰਸਕ(vii). Case: SHREE CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS, LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 990] (1961) আরও এক�ট �� রেয়েছ, যা এই আপীেল উেঠিছল িক� রঘুবংশী িমেলর আপীেল নয়। আমরা ইিতমেধ�ই বেলিছ, মহীশূর মােচস িলিমেটড, অ�ােসিস �কা�ািনর ১১,৮৮০�ট �শয়ার ধারণ কেরেছ। যিদ এই �শয়ার�িল ৪,৩২০�ট �শয়ােরর সােথ জনসাধারেণর হােত থােক বলা �যেত পাের, তেব �কা�ািনর পিরচালকরা বািক �শয়ার ধারণ ক�ক বা না ক�ক, জনসাধারেণর �ভােটর �মতার ২৫ শতাংশ থাকেব। তাই মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটেডর কােছ থাকা �শয়ার�িল জনসাধারেণর হােত আেছ িকনা তা িবেবচনা করা হাইেকােট�র জন� �েয়াজনীয় িছল৷ হাইেকাট� অ�ােসিস �কা�ািনর িব�ে� বেলেছ �য তারা জনসাধারেণর �ারা �হা��ংেয়র অংশ িহসােব গণনা করাশ যােব না এবং, আমােদর রােয়, OHaMIATCod WP HATS CA CCB PITT CH ly FALICAA BIRICN FAGTA PACS ACAI Ros (9), Mi AHA ACS: (S) 28 WE 1b. UA. oor! ACA ACI ATTs BANS ST IE ACN IID CPPATA TD Ware CATA BH GSLACT HAAS CHP CVA WARIS ACA WT CHAT A A UCATocnas IA AATকরা হয়। M--Ge2 OA-Maly CCMA Cay -CPIN CPPS GNA 4D creaCATT AW Pal BCT CATA HAAN WAT BIAS ACATA Wh CPP MA VATA ECT(@QRIERIGECKOIONG IRIAN Tomes Wfaral A VI, WT BAS Wire HA aA Bore(AID) AICS BANAT He) COMUICAT AMO PN AS *Vorer*y Taq DA fars*Powesqa Pal ACACTS ST *MTOSMVOMA BGs AIACD Aae DICNA TQCAT CACY HANIA (CTSCRIT BSSA) AA WOMANS Base AI WW 42 Oy-ga fasterATID), Ae AM J2 LACT CPT VATA CVT HATS TQCAD ACA AOA IATA] CHT ODTHUETH CoTAUUTANA FATA ACT ACPTW APOACHP CROSMAN Aal BAT AWIHA PTBWAYSSTSIACI VN ZT Hea orely |" MOON Ae IAT ACMA PAA WAY, BITCH "CHA CHP BSS)ANY CUICN42 6y-gar fase acInos AC AI" Aor Sapa PACS BS A4e WAMমােচface Seale cprmarfy feo or faeTay PACS BC, VA Gey Aa aos 4 AAAATTY Jal CACO AAI, WorInsral CP fa Gras faws caplet Wifes PraATAT CA AZSars CASA CSCS, UIs foal ATIC WSF Aros Ace, A fofa fawn nefsayকেরেছন: (BP) HATA TS CHE CHP ATTA AS UAT BAS BM Clow AT (খ) �াসি�ক মূল�ায়ন বছেরর জন� মূল�ায়নেযাগ� মুনাফা থাকেত হেব; এবং (গ) এ�ট অবশ�ই তার �নট মূল�ায়নেযাগ� লােভর ৬০ শতাংশ িবতরণ কেরিন। িতিন দািব কেরন �য এই িতন�ট শত� পূরণ না হেল,ধারা ২৩ক মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটেডর ��ে� �েযাজ� হেব না, এবং এ�টর কােছ থাকা �শয়ার�িল জনসাধারেণর হােত রেয়েছ বেল গণ� হেব৷ িতিন উে�খ কেরেছন �য মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটড, সংি�� মূল�ায়ন বছের �কান মূল�ায়নেযাগ� আয় িছল না এবং �িতর স�ুখীন হেয়িছল, �য শতিল (খ) এবং (গ) �েযাজ� হয়িন, এবং �য ধারা ২৩ক �সই �কা�ািনর জন� �েযাজ� নয়। আমােদর মেত, সেব�াপির শত� হল �সই �কা�ািনেতও জনসাধারণেক ২৫ শতাংশ লাভবান হেত হেব। �ভাটদােনর �মতা, এবং আমােদর সামেন �ীকার করা হেয়িছল �য এ�ট �মােটও এক�ট পাবিলক �কা�ািন নয় িক� এক�ট �াইেভট �কা�ািন িছল এবং তাই জনগণ �সই �কা�ািনর �িত আ�হী িছল না। মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটেডর ধারণকৃত �শয়ার�িলেক �মােটই এমন এক�ট �হা��ং িহসােব গণ� করা যােব না যােত জনসাধারণ লাভজনকভােব আ�হী হয়, ব�াখ�ায় থাকা বজ�েনর পিরে�ি�েত। রঘুবংশী িমলস িলিমেটড বনাম আয়কর কিমশনার, �বাে� ([১]) এ আমােদর পয�েব�েণর আেলােক হাইেকাট� যখন ���ট পুনিব�েবচনা করেব তখন এই পেয়��ট হাইেকােট�র িস�াে�র জন� উ�ু� থাকেব না। , আজ িস�া�. মূল�ায়নকারী �কা�ানীর জন� িব� আইনজীবীও দািব কেরেছন �য িসএল. এর পিরে�ি�েত। পাট� িব. ��টস (ট�াে�শন কনেসশন) অড�ার, ১৯৫০ এর ১৪, িবধান। ধারা ২৩ক মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটেডর জন� �েয়াগ করা যায়িন৷ এই ধারা�ট িন��প: "১৪. �াইেভট �কা�ািনর �ারা লভ�াংশ ব�ন �েয়াজন। --- আইেনর ধারা ২৩ক এর িবধান�িল িনধ�ািরত িদেনর আেগ �শষ হওয়া �কানও পূব�বত� বছেরর মুনাফা এবং লােভর ��ে� �েযাজ� হেব না যিদ না রাজ� আইেন এর সােথ স�িক�ত এক�ট িবধান থােক।" এই ছাড়�ট মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটেডর জন� উ�ু� হেব, যিদ এ�ট িস এল -এর শত�াবলী পূরণ কের। ১৪. এ�ট, তেব, এর �েয়াগ �থেক িবরত হেত পাের না। ধারা ২৩ক এ�ট �ারা ধারণ করা (১) [১৯৬১] ২ এস. িস. আর. ৯৭৮। ২ S.C.R �শয়ার�িলেক �স�িল িহসােব বণ�না করা �যেত পাের যা জনসাধারণ অন� �কা�ািনেত উপকারীভােব আ�হী িকনা তা িনধ�ারণ করেত। ব�াখ�ার �েয়াজন হয় �য এক�ট �কা�ািনর কােছ থাকা �শয়ার�িলেক জনসাধারেণর হােত ধরা িহসােব িবেবচনা করা উিচত, �ধুমা� যিদ ধারা ২৩ক এর ��ে� �েযাজ� নয়। কনেসশন অড�ার এই পরী�া�ট �নিতবাচক করেত চায় না; এ�ট �ধুমা� এক�ট �কা�ািনর উপর এক�ট সুিবধা �দান কের, যা িস এল -১৪ �েযাজ�। মাইেসার মােচস িলিমেটড, �সই ছাড়�ট �পেত স�ম হেত পাের এবং এখনও এর মেধ� পেড় ধারা ২৩ক অন�ান� উে�েশ�। এই িবতেক�র �কান �জার �নই। আিপল অনুেমািদত, এবং রঘুবংশী িমলস মামলায় ([১]) আমাে