https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7741 On certiorari, the High Court will not interfere with a revisional tax order on a disputed factual question unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the character of shareholding as trading assets, and whether dividend income could be treated as business income for set-off of carried-forward business loss, depended on facts not established before the Commissioner; the refusal to allow the set-off was therefore sustained. The Court also held that unabsorbed depreciation could not be carried forward and set off in the absence of business income in the relevant year, so the alternative depreciation claim also failed. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7741 On certiorari, the High Court will not interfere with a revisional tax order on a disputed factual question unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the character of shareholding as trading assets, and whether dividend income could be treated as business income for set-off of carried-forward business loss, depended on facts not established before the Commissioner; the refusal to allow the set-off was therefore sustained. The Court also held that unabsorbed depreciation could not be carried forward and set off in the absence of business income in the relevant year, so the alternative depreciation claim also failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7741