Investment vs stock-in-trade analysis: consistent holding facts defeated the claim of an adventure in the nature of trade.

Shares were treated as investment rather than stock-in-trade because they were not reflected as trading stock, there was no finding of conversion, and the Tribunal applied established indicators such as source of funds, mode of acquisition, holding period, past treatment, absence of repurchase, and the assessee's consistent intention. On those facts, the transactions were held not to constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, so Revenue interference was unwarranted and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the shares were held as investment or as stock-in-trade and whether the transactions amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade so as to warrant interference in the Revenue's appeals.

Analysis: The record showed that the shares were not shown as stock-in-trade, there was no finding of conversion, and the Tribunal applied accepted tests to the facts, including the source of funds, mode of acquisition, period of holding, treatment in earlier years, absence of repurchase, and the consistent intention to hold the shares as investment. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not indulged in any trade adventure.

Conclusion: The question was answered in favour of the assessee, and no substantial question of law arose.

---