<?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>1975 (8) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38934</link>
    <description>Surplus from the sale of the dry dock was treated as capital accretion rather than taxable business profit from an adventure in the nature of trade. The court assessed the transaction by considering the total effect of all relevant circumstances, not by isolating any single factor. The partnership&#039;s stated object was to operate the dry dock for inspection, repair and overhaul of ships, and it took substantial steps to secure facilities for that business. Attempts to sell the dock and the existence of commission arrangements did not, by themselves, show a trading motive. The sale occurred only after the intended business could not be carried on because the necessary facilities were not obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:58:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38934</link>
      <description>Surplus from the sale of the dry dock was treated as capital accretion rather than taxable business profit from an adventure in the nature of trade. The court assessed the transaction by considering the total effect of all relevant circumstances, not by isolating any single factor. The partnership&#039;s stated object was to operate the dry dock for inspection, repair and overhaul of ships, and it took substantial steps to secure facilities for that business. Attempts to sell the dock and the existence of commission arrangements did not, by themselves, show a trading motive. The sale occurred only after the intended business could not be carried on because the necessary facilities were not obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>