Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reference was incomplete and required a fresh statement of case on the correct question as to whether the share-dealing business and the manufacturing business constituted the same business within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The statement of the case did not set out the material facts and evidence bearing on the existence of inter-connection, inter-lacing, inter-dependence, common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund, and common place of business between the two lines of activity. The question originally framed was too restricted to permit a proper answer, so the issue had to be reframed in terms of the statutory test governing whether two businesses are the same business.
Conclusion: The matter required a supplementary statement of the case on the amended question, and the Tribunal was directed to submit it without taking fresh evidence.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding was sent back for further statement of facts so that the reframed question could be answered on the existing record.
Ratio Decidendi: Whether two lines of business are the same business depends on their inter-connection, inter-lacing, inter-dependence, and unity as shown by common management, organisation, administration, fund, and place of business.