<?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>1965 (3) TMI 86 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188804</link>
    <description>Speculative losses could not be set off against commission income where the speculative dealings and the commission agency activity were separate and distinct businesses; the loss had to remain confined to the speculative business and the claim for cross-set-off failed. Commission paid to outside agents for the assessee&#039;s own forward transactions was also required to be debited in computing the profit or loss of those speculative transactions, not separately allowed against commission receipts. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the two activities were distinct supported this treatment, and all referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:12:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 86 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188804</link>
      <description>Speculative losses could not be set off against commission income where the speculative dealings and the commission agency activity were separate and distinct businesses; the loss had to remain confined to the speculative business and the claim for cross-set-off failed. Commission paid to outside agents for the assessee&#039;s own forward transactions was also required to be debited in computing the profit or loss of those speculative transactions, not separately allowed against commission receipts. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the two activities were distinct supported this treatment, and all referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>