https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193191 Where an assessee carried on glass manufacturing and had earlier operated a sugar business, the Tribunal's finding that the two were separate businesses was supported by evidence, including separate books, separate profit and loss accounts, and no interdependence. The question whether there was one business or more than one was treated as one of fact, and the court confined itself to whether evidence supported that finding. Once the sugar undertaking was found to be distinct and discontinued, the machinery left after closure formed part of capital assets, so loss on its sale was a capital loss and not deductible as a revenue deduction against the glass business under Section 10(2)(vii). en-us Mon, 09 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:21:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193191 Where an assessee carried on glass manufacturing and had earlier operated a sugar business, the Tribunal's finding that the two were separate businesses was supported by evidence, including separate books, separate profit and loss accounts, and no interdependence. The question whether there was one business or more than one was treated as one of fact, and the court confined itself to whether evidence supported that finding. Once the sugar undertaking was found to be distinct and discontinued, the machinery left after closure formed part of capital assets, so loss on its sale was a capital loss and not deductible as a revenue deduction against the glass business under Section 10(2)(vii). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193191