1955 (3) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJAGOPALAN, J.―The question referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act ran: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inference of the Tribunal that the transaction in shares was a separate business is justified in law." The assessee carried on trade as a commission agent at Madras. Among the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that under the provisions of section 24(2) of the Income- tax Act, the assessee was not entitled to have this sum of Rs. 8,321 adjusted towards his other income, because his business in shares was a different business from that of the commission agency business which he had carried on. It is the correctness of this decision that has been challenged by the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that the finding of the Tri- bunal that "there was no nexus, inter-connection, inter-lacing or inter- dependence" between his business as commission agent and his business in the purchase and sale of shares was really not supported by the evidence on record. No doubt, the Tribunal observed that the facts it accepted were, that the assessee had no separ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of activities. That the nature of the business which the assessee carried on in the purchase and sale of shares, that is, really dealing in future, was a relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding whether it constituted an item of business distinct and separate from the commission agency business which he carried on, cannot be disputed. If the Tribunal attached more importance to tha....