<?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 (7) TMI 40 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7164</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;dealing in or holding of investments&quot; under clause (i) of the second Explanation to section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 must be read broadly, but ownership of shares alone is not enough; the activity must amount to a real, substantial, systematic or organised investment business. Shares held only to preserve managing agencies were not treated as investment-business stock. In deciding whether share-dealing was the principal business, the comparison had to be made on a commercial basis, including connected managing-agency income and dividends from shares retained for that purpose, rather than isolating share-dealing income alone. On that approach, the revenue failed to show that share-dealing was the assessee-company&#039;s main business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (7) TMI 40 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7164</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;dealing in or holding of investments&quot; under clause (i) of the second Explanation to section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 must be read broadly, but ownership of shares alone is not enough; the activity must amount to a real, substantial, systematic or organised investment business. Shares held only to preserve managing agencies were not treated as investment-business stock. In deciding whether share-dealing was the principal business, the comparison had to be made on a commercial basis, including connected managing-agency income and dividends from shares retained for that purpose, rather than isolating share-dealing income alone. On that approach, the revenue failed to show that share-dealing was the assessee-company&#039;s main business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>