1965 (3) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal has properly held that the speculative transactions were separate and distinct from commission agency business? (3) Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts to find that the commission payment of ₹ 17,590 which was paid on the assessee's speculative transactions, formed a direct charge and, therefore, rightly loaded against speculative transactions?" The assessee is a registered firm. It is a member of the Forward Exchange and carried on speculation business in grains, silver, gold, cotton, etc. The assessee received large amounts of commission in regard to forward transactions entered into on behalf of its constituents. The commission amounted to ₹ 1,02,621. The asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee did not dispute that the second question is not correctly framed. We have reframed the second question as follows: "Whether there is evidence for the conclusion that the speculation transactions were separate and distinct from the commission agency business?" So far as the first question is concerned, its decision will depend on the answer to the second question. If the speculation transactions are separate and distinct from the commission agency business, we will have to answer the first question against the assessee in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ram Sarup [1962] 45 I.T.R. 248 (F.B.), and the Division Bench decision of this court in Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissione....