<?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>1978 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36407</link>
    <description>Surplus realised on purchase and recovery of decrees is taxable as business income only if the surrounding circumstances show an adventure in the nature of trade and a dominant profit-making intention at the time of acquisition. Mere proximity between purchase and realisation, or the fact that a surplus was earned, is insufficient. On the facts considered, the assessee&#039;s close connection with the debtor-company and related parties made a non-trading motive reasonably possible, including assisting the debtor-company and settling inter se liabilities. Because the revenue could not exclude that explanation, the transaction was not treated as trading in character and the surplus was not assessable as business profits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:42:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36407</link>
      <description>Surplus realised on purchase and recovery of decrees is taxable as business income only if the surrounding circumstances show an adventure in the nature of trade and a dominant profit-making intention at the time of acquisition. Mere proximity between purchase and realisation, or the fact that a surplus was earned, is insufficient. On the facts considered, the assessee&#039;s close connection with the debtor-company and related parties made a non-trading motive reasonably possible, including assisting the debtor-company and settling inter se liabilities. Because the revenue could not exclude that explanation, the transaction was not treated as trading in character and the surplus was not assessable as business profits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>