1953 (3) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules sale of shares taxable as trade income, not capital gain.

Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Cityi

Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Cityi - [1953] 24 ITR 46 Issues Involved:1. Taxability of profit from the sale of shares.2. Nature of the transaction (whether it was an adventure in the nature of trade).3. Whether the profit was a capital appreciation or a casual and nonrecurring receipt.4. Whether the transaction was an isolated one and its implications.5. Relevance of the promoters' intention and actions.6. The role of the managing agency agreement in the transaction.7. The applicability of certain legal precedents and principles.8. The argument regarding the transaction being carried out by promoters and not the company.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Profit from the Sale of Shares:The central question was whether the profit of Rs. 16,52,600 from the sale of 13,74,000 shares was taxable. The court had to determine if this profit was a result of an adventure in the nature of trade or if it was a capital appreciation or casual receipt exempt from taxation under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.2. Nature of the Transaction (Adventure in the Nature of Trade):The court emphasized that the transaction of purchase and sale was an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee company did not use its own capital or borrow capital for purchasing the shares, indicating an intention to resell the shares at a profit from the very inception. The shares were sold in the ordinary way through brokers, and the profits were realized as they would be in a trading business. The court noted that the transaction exhibited features of business activity, including organization and profit motive, which are characteristics of trading.3. Capital Appreciation or Casual and Nonrecurring Receipt:The court distinguished between capital appreciation and profits from trading. It stated that mere capital appreciation and profits arising from it are not taxable unless they arise from a transaction that is an adventure in the nature of trade. In this case, the shares were not part of the company's capital, and the intention was to sell them at a profit, thus making the profit taxable.4. Isolated Transaction and Its Implications:The court acknowledged that the transaction was an isolated one but emphasized that even profits from isolated transactions could be taxable if the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The court found that the transaction had elements of trade, such as organization and activity, similar to those in continuous business operations.5. Promoters' Intention and Actions:The court noted that the promoters had entered into negotiations for the sale of the shares before the agreement with E.D. Sassoon & Co. was finalized. This indicated that the intention to resell the shares at a profit existed from the beginning. The promoters' actions and the subsequent sale of shares by the company were part of a well-organized plan to realize profits, reinforcing the conclusion that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.6. Managing Agency Agreement:The court considered the managing agency agreement and its relation to the purchase of shares. It concluded that the agreement was a composite one, involving the purchase of both the managing agency and the shares. The purchase of shares was not merely an obligation to acquire the managing agency but was an independent transaction aimed at making a profit.7. Legal Precedents and Principles:The court referred to several legal precedents, including Leeming v. Jones and Radha Debi Jalan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, to support its conclusion. It emphasized that the intention to resell, along with other facts, could justify the inference that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The court also highlighted that the finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade was supported by evidence and could not be challenged on the ground of lack of evidence.8. Transaction by Promoters:An argument was raised that the transaction was carried out by the promoters and not the company, and thus the profit should not be taxed in the hands of the company. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the tripartite agreement clearly indicated that the shares were delivered to the company. The company and all concerned parties had proceeded on the assumption that the income was the company's income. The court did not permit this argument as it was not raised before the Commission.Conclusion:The court reformulated the question to: 'Whether there were materials to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of 13,74,000 shares was an adventure in the nature of tradeRs.' and answered it in the affirmative. The assessee company was ordered to pay the costs of the reference and the notice of motion. The profit from the sale of shares was deemed taxable as it arose from an adventure in the nature of trade.