9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the transaction in shares was a separate business is justified in law. Analysis: The assessee, a commission agent in Madras, engaged in the purchase and sale of shares, characterized as a speculative business by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that a sum of &8377; 8,321 from his profits should be adjusted towards his other trading activities. However, the departmental authorities and the Tribunal held that under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee was not entitled to such adjustment as his share trading business was separate from his commission agency business. The assessee challenged this decision, arguing that the businesses were not distinct. The Court emphasized that determining whether a business is separate for tax purposes is a factual inquiry. The Tribunal found no nexus between the commission agency and share trading businesses based on evidence presented. Although the assessee argued against this finding, citing shared finances and resources, the Court held that the nature of the share trading business, dealing in futures, was a crucial factor. The Tribunal's decision was supported by evidence, considering the distinct nature of the share trading activities compared to the commission agency business. In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the share trading business was separate from the commission agency business. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the respondent, with a specified counsel fee. The reference was answered in the affirmative, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
|
