<?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 (10) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175582</link>
    <description>Whether profit on sale constituted revenue or capital turned on the assessee&#039;s intention at the time of purchase, to be determined by cumulative factual circumstances. The analysis emphasised short holding, opportunistic acquisition during a brief visit, local borrowing to fund purchase with no repayment despite income, failure to repatriate proceeds, and absence of genuine retention efforts; alternative explanations (size, profit, managers, alleged compulsion or family disputes) were rejected as insufficient. The Tribunal&#039;s overall factual conclusion was sustained despite some flawed reasoning. Outcome: the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade and the profit was taxable as revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:54:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (10) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175582</link>
      <description>Whether profit on sale constituted revenue or capital turned on the assessee&#039;s intention at the time of purchase, to be determined by cumulative factual circumstances. The analysis emphasised short holding, opportunistic acquisition during a brief visit, local borrowing to fund purchase with no repayment despite income, failure to repatriate proceeds, and absence of genuine retention efforts; alternative explanations (size, profit, managers, alleged compulsion or family disputes) were rejected as insufficient. The Tribunal&#039;s overall factual conclusion was sustained despite some flawed reasoning. Outcome: the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade and the profit was taxable as revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>