<?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>1961 (9) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169457</link>
    <description>Surplus from the sale of portions of estate property was not taxable as business income where the disposals were limited, spread over several years, and explained by practical management concerns. The company&#039;s plantation activity remained its principal business, and there was no evidence of organised property-dealing activity, repeated purchases for resale, or trading methods of disposal. A memorandum power to deal in property did not by itself convert the sales into a commercial venture. Applying the distinction between mere realisation of capital assets and trading in properties, the transactions were held to be capital realisations, so the surplus was not assessable as income from business or an adventure in the nature of trade.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:03:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (9) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169457</link>
      <description>Surplus from the sale of portions of estate property was not taxable as business income where the disposals were limited, spread over several years, and explained by practical management concerns. The company&#039;s plantation activity remained its principal business, and there was no evidence of organised property-dealing activity, repeated purchases for resale, or trading methods of disposal. A memorandum power to deal in property did not by itself convert the sales into a commercial venture. Applying the distinction between mere realisation of capital assets and trading in properties, the transactions were held to be capital realisations, so the surplus was not assessable as income from business or an adventure in the nature of trade.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>