<?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>1968 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7326</link>
    <description>Shareholding is treated as stock-in-trade, rather than investment, where the surrounding facts show repeated purchase and sale of shares with a commercial motive; the character of the transaction depends on a mixed question of law and fact, assessed by factors such as the subject matter, holding period, frequency, surrounding circumstances and motive. On the stated facts, the assessee&#039;s share dealings were not isolated and were part of a business in shares. The sales were also found genuine because the sale proceeds were received through brokers and banking channels, and suspicion alone was insufficient to prove sham transactions. The resulting loss was therefore deductible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7326</link>
      <description>Shareholding is treated as stock-in-trade, rather than investment, where the surrounding facts show repeated purchase and sale of shares with a commercial motive; the character of the transaction depends on a mixed question of law and fact, assessed by factors such as the subject matter, holding period, frequency, surrounding circumstances and motive. On the stated facts, the assessee&#039;s share dealings were not isolated and were part of a business in shares. The sales were also found genuine because the sale proceeds were received through brokers and banking channels, and suspicion alone was insufficient to prove sham transactions. The resulting loss was therefore deductible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>