SAHA V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 24/2009
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to determine whether s CG14(2) and/or s CG23(5) of the Income Tax Act 1994 applied to the forfeiture of the appellant's shares.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 24/2009
- Parties
- Applicant: Govind Prasad Saha; Respondent: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court Appeal / Leave Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Share Forfeiture, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act 1994 Interpretation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Govind Prasad Saha
Applicant
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Appeal / Leave Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s CG14(2) and/or s CG23(5) of the Income Tax Act 1994 applied to the forfeiture of the appellant's shares
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to determine whether s CG14(2) and/or s CG23(5) of the Income Tax Act 1994 applied to the forfeiture of the appellant's shares.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Approved ground of appeal: whether s CG14(2) and/or s CG23(5) of the Income Tax Act 1994 applied to the forfeiture of the appellant's shares
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SAHA V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 24/2009 25 May 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 24/2009 [2009] NZSC 50BETWEEN GOVIND PRASAD SAHA Applicant AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Wilson JJ Counsel: G J Harley and R P Harley for Applicant M S R Palmer and M T Lennard for Respondent Judgment: 25 May 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. Leave to appeal is granted. B. The approved ground of appeal is whether s CG14(2) and/or s CG23(5) of the Income Tax Act 1994 applied to the forfeiture of the shares of the appellant.Solicitors: Quigg Partners, Wellington for Applicant Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent