<?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>1959 (5) TMI 10 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49596</link>
    <description>The note addresses whether a solitary purchase-and-assignment of land constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade, clarifying that this is a mixed question of law and fact: fact-finders must establish primary facts and courts decide legal characterisation. Relevant factors include transaction magnitude, purchaser&#039;s business activities, means of finance, intention at purchase, and whether the deal is an isolated investment or part of trading activity. The analysis emphasises that the revenue bears the burden to prove a dominant trading intention; absent such proof the gain is an accretion to capital rather than income from an adventure in the nature of trade, and the tribunal&#039;s orders were overturned in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (5) TMI 10 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49596</link>
      <description>The note addresses whether a solitary purchase-and-assignment of land constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade, clarifying that this is a mixed question of law and fact: fact-finders must establish primary facts and courts decide legal characterisation. Relevant factors include transaction magnitude, purchaser&#039;s business activities, means of finance, intention at purchase, and whether the deal is an isolated investment or part of trading activity. The analysis emphasises that the revenue bears the burden to prove a dominant trading intention; absent such proof the gain is an accretion to capital rather than income from an adventure in the nature of trade, and the tribunal&#039;s orders were overturned in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>