https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60941 Revision under s.263 was held unsustainable because the Commissioner failed to bring any fresh facts or evidence warranting departure from the consistent treatment adopted since AY 1985-86, and did not show that earlier assessments were arbitrary or perverse; accordingly, the revisional order was cancelled. On characterization of gains from sale of shares, applying the dominant-intention test (intention at acquisition) recognized by the SC and HC, and noting that the shares were recorded in a separate investment portfolio account evidencing investment intent, the shares were treated as capital assets under s.2(14) and the resultant surplus was assessable as capital gains (including deduction under s.48(2)), not business income; the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 27 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60941 Revision under s.263 was held unsustainable because the Commissioner failed to bring any fresh facts or evidence warranting departure from the consistent treatment adopted since AY 1985-86, and did not show that earlier assessments were arbitrary or perverse; accordingly, the revisional order was cancelled. On characterization of gains from sale of shares, applying the dominant-intention test (intention at acquisition) recognized by the SC and HC, and noting that the shares were recorded in a separate investment portfolio account evidencing investment intent, the shares were treated as capital assets under s.2(14) and the resultant surplus was assessable as capital gains (including deduction under s.48(2)), not business income; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60941