<?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 (4) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36744</link>
    <description>Two activities constitute the same business only if there is interconnection, interlacing, interdependence or unity of control, organisation, staff, capital and accounts. Applying that test, the earlier proprietary activity of supplying stones and building materials to Government and the later partnership business of constructing Government buildings were held to be distinct ventures. The differences in ownership form, business names, separate accounts, and absence of common organisation or employees showed no operational identity, and common use of funds alone was insufficient. A loss from the extinct earlier business was therefore treated as a trading loss of a discontinued business and not available for set-off against income from the later business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36744</link>
      <description>Two activities constitute the same business only if there is interconnection, interlacing, interdependence or unity of control, organisation, staff, capital and accounts. Applying that test, the earlier proprietary activity of supplying stones and building materials to Government and the later partnership business of constructing Government buildings were held to be distinct ventures. The differences in ownership form, business names, separate accounts, and absence of common organisation or employees showed no operational identity, and common use of funds alone was insufficient. A loss from the extinct earlier business was therefore treated as a trading loss of a discontinued business and not available for set-off against income from the later business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>