https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12079 Concurrent factual findings that shares were acquired and held as investment, rather than as stock-in-trade, justified assessment of the profit on sale under the head capital gains and not business income. The earlier favourable treatment of similar transactions did not create res judicata, but a contrary view could be taken only on the basis of fresh material, which was absent. The appellate authorities had applied the correct legal principles, including Supreme Court guidance on distinguishing investment from trading activity, and no legal or factual infirmity was shown. As no substantial question of law arose under section 260A, interference was not warranted. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Dec 2025 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12079 Concurrent factual findings that shares were acquired and held as investment, rather than as stock-in-trade, justified assessment of the profit on sale under the head capital gains and not business income. The earlier favourable treatment of similar transactions did not create res judicata, but a contrary view could be taken only on the basis of fresh material, which was absent. The appellate authorities had applied the correct legal principles, including Supreme Court guidance on distinguishing investment from trading activity, and no legal or factual infirmity was shown. As no substantial question of law arose under section 260A, interference was not warranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12079