Profit-and-loss sharing in a venture indicates capital investment, making the resulting loss non-deductible.

The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by drawing a different legal inference from the same agreement; construing the transaction's legal effect remained within section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. On the merits, an agreement requiring the assessee to share both profits and losses in a film venture showed that the monies were placed in the business as an investment to earn a share of profits, not as a mere financing or money-lending arrangement. The resulting loss was therefore capital in nature and not deductible under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xi).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal, in deciding the nature of the transaction, travelled beyond its powers under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether the loss of Rs. 80,759 arising from the agreement was a deductible revenue loss or a capital loss not allowable under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal, in deciding the nature of the transaction, travelled beyond its powers under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The issue before the tax authorities and before the Tribunal remained whether the claimed loss was capital or revenue in nature. That question had to be answered from the legal effect of the agreement. The Tribunal did not introduce a new controversy; it drew a different legal inference from the same document than the lower authorities had drawn. A different inference on the construction of the agreement did not amount to making out a new case.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not exceed its powers under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (ii): Whether the loss of Rs. 80,759 arising from the agreement was a deductible revenue loss or a capital loss not allowable under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The agreement required the assessee to share both profits and losses of the venture relating to the film. Such a term was inconsistent with a mere money-lending or ordinary financing transaction and showed that the monies were placed in the business as an investment to earn a share of profits. The obligation to share losses took the transaction out of the category of financing deals and indicated investment of capital rather than stock-in-trade.

Conclusion: The loss was a capital loss and was not deductible under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Final Conclusion: The question referred was answered against the assessee, and the claimed deduction was rejected because the transaction was held to be an investment of capital and not a revenue financing transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the terms of an agreement show that the assessee shared both profit and loss in the venture, the transaction is to be treated as an investment of capital and not as a mere financing or money-lending arrangement, and the resulting loss is capital in nature.

---