<?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>1953 (3) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184123</link>
    <description>Profit on sale of shares was treated as taxable income because the surrounding facts showed an adventure in the nature of trade. Although the transaction was isolated, the company never intended to retain the shares, used brokers, arranged sales before completion of purchase, and realised profit through resale in the ordinary commercial manner. The receipt was therefore characterised as commercial trading profit rather than capital appreciation or a casual, non-recurring receipt. The contention that the shares were acquired merely as an incident of the managing agency was rejected, as the share deal remained a distinct profit-making operation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:33:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (3) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184123</link>
      <description>Profit on sale of shares was treated as taxable income because the surrounding facts showed an adventure in the nature of trade. Although the transaction was isolated, the company never intended to retain the shares, used brokers, arranged sales before completion of purchase, and realised profit through resale in the ordinary commercial manner. The receipt was therefore characterised as commercial trading profit rather than capital appreciation or a casual, non-recurring receipt. The contention that the shares were acquired merely as an incident of the managing agency was rejected, as the share deal remained a distinct profit-making operation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>