9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Tribunal referred the following question for opinion to the High Court of Calcutta under section 66(2) of the income-tax Act, 1922. " Was there any evidence before the Tribunal on which it could hold that the business in dealing with shares was distinct and separate from the business of sugar-manufacturing and distillery ? " The High Court recorded their answer in the affirmative. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter-relation between the purchase of shares and the manufacture of sugar." The court ordered that the Tribunal be directed to submit the supplementary statement of the case on the following points : " 1. What is the nature and description of the refinery acquired by the assessee in 1943 ? 2. What are the dates of commencement of various ventures carried on by the assessee-company? 3. What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We may observe that the question which the Tribunal was directed to and did refer was defective and restricted the scope of the enquiry. In our judgment, the question should have been in the following form : " Whether the business of the company of dealing in shares and the business of manufacturing sugar and other commodities constitute the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no reference to the evidence about the method of management, the business organisation, the administration, the fund and the place of business, in the statement of the case or even in the judgments of the income-tax authorities. Since, however, a restricted question was framed, it is probable that in submitting the statement of the case the Tribunal was misled into assuming that it was not nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
