Investment company test under section 23A requires proof of primary business in investments, not mere ownership of assets.

For section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to apply, the revenue had to prove that the company's real, substantial and primary business was the dealing in or holding of investments. Mere ownership of securities, land, buildings or other assets was not enough to characterise it as an investment company. On the materials discussed, there was no evidence that the assessee-company's principal business was investment activity, so it was not treated as a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the dealing in or holding of investments.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company could be treated as a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the dealing in or holding of investments for the purposes of section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The relevant test was whether the company's real, substantial and primary business was investment activity, and the burden lay on the revenue to establish that the company fell within the mischief of section 23A. Mere ownership of securities, land, buildings, or other assets did not by itself make a company an investment company. On the materials before the Court, there was no evidence showing that the assessee's principal business was the acquisition, dealing in, or holding of investments; the company's receipts and holdings did not establish the requisite predominant investment character.

Conclusion: The assessee-company was not a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the dealing in or holding of investments, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 23A to apply, the revenue must prove that the company's primary business is the dealing in or holding of investments; mere possession of investment assets is insufficient.

---