https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39513 For attracting additional super-tax under section 104, the revenue had to prove that the assessee was an investment company under section 109(ii), meaning its business consisted wholly or mainly in dealing in or holding investments. Mere ownership of investments was insufficient; the decisive test was whether there was a real, substantial and systematic investment business as the company's primary activity. On the facts, the assessee's investments arose from its earlier insurance business, no organised investment business was shown for the relevant year, and a later memorandum change could not alter that position. The court held that the assessee was not an investment company for that year, and the reference was answered against the revenue. en-us Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:32:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39513 For attracting additional super-tax under section 104, the revenue had to prove that the assessee was an investment company under section 109(ii), meaning its business consisted wholly or mainly in dealing in or holding investments. Mere ownership of investments was insufficient; the decisive test was whether there was a real, substantial and systematic investment business as the company's primary activity. On the facts, the assessee's investments arose from its earlier insurance business, no organised investment business was shown for the relevant year, and a later memorandum change could not alter that position. The court held that the assessee was not an investment company for that year, and the reference was answered against the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39513