<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1955 (7) TMI 26 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168763</link>
    <description>Whether profit from the purchase and resale of a spinning plant was taxable turned on whether the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The statutory phrase is a question of law, but applying it to proved facts is ordinarily an inference of fact. A tribunal&#039;s contrary conclusion may be set aside where it rests on a misunderstanding of the statutory language, no evidence, or a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could reach. On the facts, the buyers intended a quick resale at profit, organised the disposal, incurred trading-like expenses, and sold the plant in lots for gain; the isolated nature of the venture did not prevent it from being trading. The assessments were therefore confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:01:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (7) TMI 26 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168763</link>
      <description>Whether profit from the purchase and resale of a spinning plant was taxable turned on whether the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The statutory phrase is a question of law, but applying it to proved facts is ordinarily an inference of fact. A tribunal&#039;s contrary conclusion may be set aside where it rests on a misunderstanding of the statutory language, no evidence, or a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could reach. On the facts, the buyers intended a quick resale at profit, organised the disposal, incurred trading-like expenses, and sold the plant in lots for gain; the isolated nature of the venture did not prevent it from being trading. The assessments were therefore confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>