1969 (3) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim holding that the assessee was an investor in shares and not a dealer in shares. There was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that 1,500 shares in Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. were purchased and sold by the assessee in one lot. Inasmuch as in the appeal for the immediately preceding year the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had considered the question whether the assessee was a dealer in shares or not and had come to the conclusion that the assessee was not a dealer in shares, he held that in the year under appeal also the assessee was not a dealer in shares. He, accordingly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is 3,500 shares, a big lot being 1,500 was sold during the year of account. It was argued that the sale took place because the company's expectation about a rise in value of the shares had not been fulfilled. The Tribunal referred to its previous order in respect of the preceding year. It was contended in the appeal for the preceding year that the company was authorised by its memorandum of association to buy and sell stocks and shares. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant's main business. was in jute and they had not traded in shares any time before the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1958-59. In the balance-sheet the assessee-company had described the shares as investments and during the year of account its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with such a finding. In that view of the matter we find that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly borne the principles in mind and has considered all the relevant facts pro and contra in respect of the rival contentions of the parties and has come to the conclusion that the loss was capital loss. In the premises, we are of the opinion that we cannot interfere with such a finding in the facts and circumstances of this case. As such the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner his costs of this reference. SHANKAR PRASAD MITRA J.-I agree. Question answered in the affirmative
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X