TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is somewhat long, the relevant facts are very few. The assessee company was incorporated in 1960 for manufacturing plasticizers in collaboration with Nichimen Co. of Osaka, Japan, which we propose to refer to hereafter as " the Japanese company ". By April 1, 1964, the assessee-company had issued 27,000 shares at cost price. Eight thousand three hundred and forty-four of these shares were held by a private limited company and 9,900 of these shares were held by the Japanese company. The remaining shareholdings were relatively small. There were 18 shareholders in all. Article 53 of the articles of association of the assessee conferred absolute and uncontrolled discretion on the board of directors to decline to register a transfer of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) its shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a future right to participate in profits) carrying not less than fifty per cent. of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and were throughout the relevant previous year beneficially held by (a) the Government, or (b) a corporation established by a Central, State or provincial Act, or (c) any company to which this clause applies or any subsidiary company of such company where such subsidiary company fulfils the conditions laid down in clause (b) of section 108 (hereinafter in this clause referred to as the subsidiary company), or (d) the public (not being a director, or a company to which this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interested and in view of that the assessee-company could not be regarded either as a company in which public were substantially interested. In this regard, the auditor's certificate which has been accepted shows that the Japanese company was a public company in the sense that it was a company in which the public were substantially interested. The only argument of Mr. Jetly was that it was the Japanese public who were shareholders of the Japanese company and not the Indian public. We see no reason why the meaning of the term " public " should be curtailed in the manner suggested by Mr. Jetly. We are not called upon to consider whether the Japanese shareholders of the Japanese company were Indian citizens or not but whether they were membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
