Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.70 seconds)Section 66 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 May, 1959
But in Saroj Kumar
Mazumdar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal 37
I.T.R. 242.
M/S. Ramnarain Sons (Pr.) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 5 December, 1960
In the case of Rannarain Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Bombay 41 I.T.R. 534 S.C. this Court observed
that in considering whether a transaction was or was not an
adventure in the nature of trade, the problem must be
approached in the light of the intention of the assessee
having regard to the legal requirements which were
associated with the concept of trade or business. The
inference on this question raised by the Tribunal on the
facts found was of mixed law and fact and was open to
challenge before the High Court on a reference. The question
whether the assessee's transactions amounted to dealing in
shares and properties or to investment, was a mixed question
of law and fact, and the legal effect of the facts found by
the Tribunal on which the assessee could be treated as a
dealer or an investor, was a question of law.
Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta on 31 March, 1965
In the case of Janki Ram Bhadur Ram v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Calcutta 57 I.T.R. 21 S.C. this Court observed
that the profit motive in entering a transaction was not
decisive, for an accretion to capital did not become taxable
income merely because an asset was acquired in the
expectation that it might be sold at a profit. This Court
further observed that if a transaction was related to the
business which was normally carried on by the assessee,
though not directly part of it, an intention to launch upon
an adventure in the nature of trade might readily be
inferred.
G. Venkataswami Naidu And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 18 April, 1955
How a question of this nature should be viewed has been
indicated by this Court as early as 1958 in G. Venkataswami
Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 35 I.T.R. 594
S.C.. The question there was whether sale of a land to a
company could be treated in the facts and circumstances of
the case as an adventure in the nature of trade. There, on
the facts this
1085
Court upheld the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in
affirming that the assessee knew that it would be able to
sell the lands to the managed company whenever it thought it
profitable to do so; that the assessee had purchased the
four plots of land with the sole intention of selling them
to the mills at a profit which intention raised a strong
presumption in favour of the view taken by the Tribunal.
This Court reiterated that the jurisdiction conferred on the
High Court under section 66(1) of the Act of 1922
(hereinafter called the 'old Act') i.e. section 256 of the
Act of 1961, (hereinafter called the 'new Act') was limited
to entertaining references involving questions of law. It
was emphasised that if the point raised on reference related
to the construction of a document of title or to the
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the statute, it
is a pure question of law; and in dealing with it, though
the High Court might have due regard for the view taken by
the Appellate Tribunal, its decision would not be fettered
by the Tribunal's view. It was free to adopt such
construction of the document or the statute as appeared to
it reasonable. Where the point sought to be raised on a
reference was a pure question of fact, the finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal must be regarded as conclusive in
proceedings under reference. If, however, such a finding of
fact was based on an inference drawn from primary
evidentiary facts proved in the case, its correctness and
validity were open to challenge in reference proceedings,
within, however, narrow limits. The assessee or the revenue
could contend that the inference had been drawn on
considering inadmissible evidence or after excluding
admissible and relevant evidence; and if the High Court was
satisfied that the inference was the result of improper
admission or exclusion of evidence, it would be justified in
examining the correctness of the conclusion. It may also be
open to the party to challenge a conclusion of fact drawn by
the Tribunal on the ground that it was not supported by any
legal evidence; or that the impugned conclusion drawn from
the relevant facts was not rationally possible; and if such
a plea was established, the court might consider whether the
conclusion was not preverse and should not, therefore, be
set aside. It was to be remembered, however, that it was
within those narrow limits that the conclusions of fact
recorded by the Tribunal could be challenged in a reference
to the High Court. Such conclusions could never be
challenged on the ground that these were based
1086
on misappreciation of evidence. A conclusion reached by the
Tribunal on the ground that it is a conclusion on a question
of mixed law and fact, is no doubt based upon the primary
evidentiary facts, but its ultimate form is determined by
the application of relevant legal principles. The need to
apply the relevant legal principles tends to confer upon the
final conclusion its character of a legal conclusion. In
dealing with findings on questions of mixed law and fact the
High Court however, has to accept the findings of the
Tribunal on the primary questions of facts; but it is open
to the High Court to examine whether the Tribunal had
applied the relevant legal principles correctly or not; and
in that sense, the scope of enquiry and the context of the
jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with such points
was the same as in dealing with pure points of law, and not
beyond that.
P. M. Mohammad Meerakhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ernakulam on 12 February, 1969
In P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-
tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 S.C. this Court reiterated that it
was not
1093
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 the transaction.
Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar And ... on 1 September, 1969
In Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Commissioner
of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa, 77 ITR 253 S.C. the question
of adventure in the nature of trade was again considered by
this Court and it was 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 bring 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.
Dalhousie Investment Trust Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 22 November, 1967
The question was again considered by this Court in
Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta, 68 ITR 486 S.C. There this
Court on the facts came to the conclusion that the assessee
dealt with the shares of Moleod and Co. and the allied
companies as stock-in-trade, and that these were in fact
purchased even initially not as investments but for the
purpose of sale at a profit and therefore the transactions
amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade, and the
profit derived by the appellant from the sale of share was
therefore revenue receipt and as much liable to income-tax.
It was held that the decision of department in the earlier
years that the transactions were in the nature of change of
investments was not binding in the proceedings for
assessment during the subsequent years.