<?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>1965 (11) TMI 22 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49223</link>
    <description>Where an assessee&#039;s only existing commercial undertaking has been discontinued, mere retention of assets, collection of outstanding dues, investment of surplus funds, or consideration of a future venture does not amount to carrying on business. The majority held that the company&#039;s electricity business ended when the undertaking was delivered to the Government, so the later activities were only incidental to closure and not business operations. Accordingly, the assessee was treated as having ceased business during the relevant accounting years, and deductions under section 10(2)(xv) were disallowed. A dissenting view considered the investment activity and continuing dealings with assets sufficient to show that business had not wholly ended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (11) TMI 22 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49223</link>
      <description>Where an assessee&#039;s only existing commercial undertaking has been discontinued, mere retention of assets, collection of outstanding dues, investment of surplus funds, or consideration of a future venture does not amount to carrying on business. The majority held that the company&#039;s electricity business ended when the undertaking was delivered to the Government, so the later activities were only incidental to closure and not business operations. Accordingly, the assessee was treated as having ceased business during the relevant accounting years, and deductions under section 10(2)(xv) were disallowed. A dissenting view considered the investment activity and continuing dealings with assets sufficient to show that business had not wholly ended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>