Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs M/S Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 16 April, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... vs Associated Industrial Development Co. ... on 7 September, 1971

Investment in .Shares Investment in Mutual Funds 259.53 lacs 201.00 lacs TOTAL: 460.53 lacs The assessee invested its shareholders' funds in shares/units of mutual funds in terms of the decision of its management from time to time. These were made in mutual fund units and shares. Whilst the investments were not demarcated and sourced through separate accounts, equally the fact remains that the objects of the company permitted such transactions. What is more, there were only 11 sale and purchase of scrips - these did not indicate any great volume or frequency of share/purchase transactions. Keeping in mind the ruling in Associated Industrial (supra) as well as other decisions that undue emphasis cannot be given on one indicating factor alone, the findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed by the ITAT, in the impugned order, in this Court's opinion, do not disclose any error so as to call for interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 256 - A N Grover - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai vs Smt. P. Manonmani, Karur on 4 February, 2000

Its investments in the impugned transactions were clearly part of its trading activities, not only because there were no separate accounts, but also because frequent sale and purchase of shares of few companies had been resorted to. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar Investment Co., 320 ITR 486 (Kar) were relied on. Relying on the reasoning of the AO, it was argued that the pattern of share acquisition and share clearly showed that the assessee's intention was to trade or conduct business and not to hold the scrips for investment. Had the intention been genuinely to invest in such shares, the assessee ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 4 would have taken the trouble of keeping a separate investment account.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - R J Babu - Full Document

Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singhand ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Biharand ... on 15 December, 1960

Likewise, in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh (supra) the question of adventure in the nature of trade was again considered by the Supreme Court and which reiterated that since the expression "adventure in the nature of trade" implied the existence of certain element in the transactions which in law would invest these with the character of trade or business and the question on that account became a mixed question of law and fact, the court could review the Tribunal's findings if it had misdirected itself in law. It was fairly clear that where a person in selling his investment realised an enhanced price, the excess over his purchase price was not profit assessable to tax as income, but it would be so, if what was done was not a mere realisation of the investment but an act done for making profit. The distinction between the two types of transactions is not always easy to make. Whether the transaction is of one kind or the other depends on the question whether the excess is an enhancement of the value by realising a security or a gain in an operation of profit-making. The assessee might invest his capital in shares with the intention to resell these if in future their sale brings in a higher price. Such an investment, though motivated by a possibility of enhanced value, did not necessarily render the investment a transaction in the nature of trade.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 69 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976

12. The Madras High Court in N.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd. (supra) had to deal with the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the profit on sale of shares was to be treated as capital gains instead of ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 11 business income. The Court referred to paragraph 15 of the ITAT order and then stated as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 77 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 19 September, 1990

In Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, AIR 1991 SC 239 the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the assessee-bank, had received amounts on securities purchased from another bank company as well as in the open market. The two amounts were brought to tax by the AO overruling the assessee's claim that they were deductible. The High Court, on a reference, observed that the amount spent by the assessee for the purchase of securities were in the nature of capital outlay and they could not be set off as expenditure against income ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 9 accruing on the securities. In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

P. M. Mohammad Meerakhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ernakulam on 12 February, 1969

11. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (SC) another ruling of the Supreme Court reiterated that it was not possible to evolve any single legal test or formula which could be applied in determining whether a transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade or not. The answer to the question must necessarily depend in each case on the total impression and effect of all the relevant factors and circumstances proved therein and which determine the character of ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 10 the transaction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 96 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs H. Holck Larsen on 8 May, 1986

19. As in the case of AY 2007-08, the Appellate Commissioner's evaluation of facts was based on an overall consideration of all the circumstances. As emphasized in H. Holck Larsen and P. Mohammed Mirakhan (supra) by the Supreme Court, no single factor or criteria ought to be given undue weight, ordinarily. Having regard to the entire facts, the court is satisfied that on a fair application of the various tests, viz the volume, frequency and duration of holding test; the source of funds (own or borrowed); the objects - of the enterprise- test; the nature of the assessee's business; the previous history of such transactions, etc the conclusions of the Commissioner, endorsed by the ITAT after its independent analysis of the circumstances, does not disclose any error of law warranting interference by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 225 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1