Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 61 of 61 Records

• 1966 (3) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  Determination of whether securities held by the assessee were investments or stock-in-trade, and the classification of the loss incurred on their sale as capital loss or revenue loss.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a question of law referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of securities held by the assessee and the treatment of losses incurred on their sale. The assessee, a company, had purchased Government securities and sold them at a loss during the relevant accounting year. The company's memorandum of association allowed for investment activities. The balance-sheet indicated the securities as investments, not stock-in-trade.
  
  The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claimed loss, asserting that the transaction was of a capital nature, not a normal business venture. The Tribunal agreed, considering factors like the company's past activities, valuation methods, and frequency of transactions. The Tribunal found the securities were investments of an enduring character, leading to a capital loss on their sale.
  
  The High Court analyzed the grounds put forth by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of commercial practice in determining the nature of securities held. The Court highlighted the rule of valuing closing stock at cost or market price, whichever is lower, in considering whether securities were stock-in-trade. The Court also rejected the argument that the sale of securities was for varying investments, citing a Supreme Court case where sales linked to business activities were considered trading profits.
  
  The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings where sales were linked to business financing needs. In this case, the securities were sold only in the specific accounting year without clear business justifications. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the securities were held as investments, not stock-in-trade, and the loss incurred was a capital loss. The question was answered accordingly, with the assessee directed to pay the costs of the reference.

  ---

1234