SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Mad) 188

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMANUJAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAM
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai - Appellant
Versus
M. Ramaswamy - Respondent
Case No : Tax Case Petition No. 125 of 1983
Decided On : 27 March 1983

Advocates Appeared: For

The transfer of shares is complete as between the transferor and transferee, even though it is not registered in the company's books.

Headnote:

TRANSFER OF SHARES - VALIDITY - REGISTRATION IN COMPANY'S BOOKS - NOT ESSENTIAL - TRANSFER COMPLETE AS BETWEEN TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE - TRANSFEROR BECOMES TRUSTEE FOR TRANSFEREE - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, SS. 122, 123.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee sold shares of a sick mill to a company consisting of himself, his brother, and father. The ITO and AAC held that the sale was a sham and that the transfer was incomplete since it was not entered in the share registers of the company. The Tribunal held that the transfer was complete as between the transferor and transferee and allowed the assessee to claim adjustment of the capital loss.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transfer of shares was complete as between the transferor and transferee, even though it was not registered in the company's books. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shelat v. Thakar, which held that the requirements of ss. 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were satisfied and that the gift of the right to get share certificates made out in the name of the done became irrevocable and complete by registration of the deed as well as by delivery.

Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of shares to the company was valid and complete. 2. Whether the assessee was entitled to claim adjustment of the capital loss.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer of shares was complete as between the transferor and transferee, even though it was not registered in the company's books. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shelat v. Thakar, which held that the requirements of ss. 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were satisfied and that the gift of the right to get share certificates made out in the name of the done became irrevocable and complete by registration of the deed as well as by delivery.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revenue's petition and upheld the Tribunal's decision.

Judgment :-

RAMANUJAM J.

The two questions that are sought to be referred to this court for its opinion by the Revenue are as follows :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the shares pertaining to the 'sick mills' have been validly transferred to Messrs. Karumuthu Ramaswamy Finance (P.) Ltd., during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1977-78 and, hence, the assessee is entitled to loss on such transfer ?

2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's further finding to the effect that share being movable property can be transferred as per the articles of the company and the transferee gets the right of ownership even if the transaction is not entered in the share registers of the company is sustainable in law ?" *

The facts leading to the filing of this reference petition may briefly be stated : The assessee is an individual having income from a partnership firm, share dividends, sitting fees, etc. He sold some shares during the year which he held in the Bank of Madurai and Rajendra Textile Mills Ltd. The said amount was considered for capital gains. He also sustained some loss in selling the shares of Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Ltd., which was a sick mill. The latter shares were sold to Messrs. Karumuthu Ramaswamy Finance (P.) Ltd. at the rate of Re. 1 per share, while the face value of the share was Rs. 100. The ITO observed that the mills whose shares are stated to have been sold were declared as sick mills, the management having been taken over by the Government from April 1, 1974, and that after nationalisation, the compensation fixed by the Government was even inadequate to pay off the secured and unsecured creditors and, hence, the value of the share was practically "nil". Besides that, he noted that the purchasing company consisted only of three shareholders, the assessee, his brother and father. Therefore, he held that the sale transaction was a sham transaction. He also held that the alleged transfer in the name Karumuthu Ramaswamy Finance (P.) Ltd. did not find a place in the share certificate register maintained by the company and that, therefore, the sale could not be considered as complete and in view of that the assessee continued to be the owner of the shares in question. In these circumstances, the ITO rejected the assessee's claim for adjustment of "capital loss" as against "capital gains".On appeal, the AAC held that the sale transactions were not sham, as found by the ITO, but yet he agreed with the ITO that in the absence of entries in the share registers of the respective companies indicating the sale of shares, the sales cannot be taken to be complete and that, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the set off of the "capital loss".

The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal contending that as between the transferor and the transferee the transaction of sale of shares is complete and from the mere fact that the company has not recognised the transfer and made entries in the share registers, it cannot be said that the transfer is incomplete. The Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in Shelat v. Thakar held that the ownership of the shares stood transferred from the assessee to the purchasers, Messers. Karumuthu Ramaswamy Finance (P.) Ltd. notwithstanding the fact that the transfer of shares had not been registered in the company's books, and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim adjustment of the "capital loss".

Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue seeks to raise the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this court.

The learned counsel for the Revenue contends that even though all the formalities have been completed as between the transferor and the transferee, the transfer of shares cannot be said to be complete so as to enable the purchasers to acquire title to the shares, unless the transfer is registered in the company's share registers. In support of t


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top