9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (10) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for which they were transferred and he wrote off, ₹ 5,733 in the accounts and claimed that this was a business loss and got a reduction of Income Tax. As regards the mortgage items, while a certain portion of the mortgaged property was recovered, he was not able to recover the amount for which they were assigned and he also claimed it as a business loss and got a deduction. As regards the rubber estate it was sold at a profit and the question is whether that profit is taxable as part: of the profits made by him in the business. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that this was an isolated transaction, that it cannot be said to form part of his business, that any profit on re-sale was not profit made in the course of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , mortgage items and this item of property and they were all clubbed together in an account called Thundu kanakku. This account was part of the business account and only formed a separate ledger heading there. In dealing with this transaction of the re-sale of the rubber plantations we must take into consideration what he did in respect of all the three items which were taken together to discharge the debt. It does not appear that there was any separate treatment as regards this item. They were all brought into Thundu kanakku; as monies were realised they were credited to the general account as monies realised in the course of the liquidation of the debt; and they were brought in the business account. When there was a loss in two of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clearly as follows: In my view there is no question of law really in issue here. The law seems to me to be perfectly well settled, and the only question one has to determine is which side of the line this transaction falls on. Is it, as Mr. Latter contends, in the nature of capital profit on the sale of an investment? Or is it, as the Attorney-General contends, a profit made in the operation of the appellant company's business? Now, that is very largely, as 1 think, a question of fact again. 3. Then, the learned Judge refers to certain circumstances and gives reasons for holding that it is part of the business. The learned Judge observes: I do not think it is possible to say that the mere fact that it was an isolated transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
