Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta on 31 March, 1965
12. It is unnecessary to set down in our judgment the facts in Janki Ram's case as also the facts in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan's case inasmuch as the facts in neither case are or can be identical with the case before us. It has to be conceded that the facts on which the decision was given against the assessee in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan's case were a little stronger for the revenue than the facts before us. On those facts (summarised at page 742 of the report) it is abundantly clear that the assessee had earned profit in the course of a profit-making scheme and, therefore, the surplus realised was required to be considered a revenue surplus as having arisen out of an adventure in the nature of trade. Having, however, given anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we are of opinion that the overall impression left by the course of transactions entered into by the assessee before us would result in the same conclusions being reached as were arrived at by the ITO and subsequently confirmed by the AAC and the Tribunal.