https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468835 Delivery-based share transactions, supported by prior capital-gains treatment, dividend income, absence of a running broker account, and evidence that surplus funds were used for investment, indicated investor status rather than trading activity. Concurrent factual findings by the lower authorities that no borrowings were made were not shown to be perverse, so they were binding and no substantial question of law arose on appeal. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 17:56:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468835 Delivery-based share transactions, supported by prior capital-gains treatment, dividend income, absence of a running broker account, and evidence that surplus funds were used for investment, indicated investor status rather than trading activity. Concurrent factual findings by the lower authorities that no borrowings were made were not shown to be perverse, so they were binding and no substantial question of law arose on appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468835