<?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>1967 (3) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6865</link>
    <description>Loss on the sale of preference shares was treated as a capital loss rather than a deductible trading loss because the transaction, viewed in its surrounding circumstances, was an investment and not an adventure in the nature of trade. The solitary share dealing, absence of regular share-trading activity, close connection between the companies, dividend-oriented purpose, and treatment of the shares as investments in the accounts all supported that characterisation. The company&#039;s memorandum power to deal in shares was relevant but not decisive. The governing principle applied was that the true nature of the transaction depends on its intrinsic character and actual course of operations, not merely on corporate objects or trading capacity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (3) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6865</link>
      <description>Loss on the sale of preference shares was treated as a capital loss rather than a deductible trading loss because the transaction, viewed in its surrounding circumstances, was an investment and not an adventure in the nature of trade. The solitary share dealing, absence of regular share-trading activity, close connection between the companies, dividend-oriented purpose, and treatment of the shares as investments in the accounts all supported that characterisation. The company&#039;s memorandum power to deal in shares was relevant but not decisive. The governing principle applied was that the true nature of the transaction depends on its intrinsic character and actual course of operations, not merely on corporate objects or trading capacity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>