Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Bombay Vs. Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals No. 684 of 1980 with No. 683 of 1980,
Petitioner: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Bombay
Respondent: Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeals No. 684 of 1980 with No. 683 of 1980,
Judges: B.P. Jeevan Reddy & K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 28, 1996
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income tax Act 1961
Business Income – Transactions of purchase and sale of shares by assessee company – Tribunal holding the transactions like regular dealings and not by way of investment and treating the profits also and losses as bring revenue in nature – High Court upholding the finding of Tribunal. Held the findings bring findings of tact no interference called for.
Income tax Act 1961
Business Income – Transactions of purchase and sale of shares by assessee company – Tribunal holding the transactions like regular dealings and not by way of investment and treating the profits also and losses as bring revenue in nature – High Court upholding the finding of Tribunal. Held the findings bring findings of tact no interference called for.
Appeal to supreme Court – special leave – court can not review the order granting leave after lapse of considerable time.
Cases Reffered:
1. Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 2. (1985) 155 ITR 121
2. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1 (1979) 118 ITR 243
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Of the six questions which were sought to be raised by the Revenue and which application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed by the High Court, this Court granted special leave in respect of only one of the six questions namely; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the pur-chase and sales by the assessee of shares in the National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (both ordinary and preference) and the Kohinoor Mills Ltd. should be considered as regular dealings and not by way of investment and that the profits or losses in respect of these transactions be taken on revenue account?”
2. So far as this question is concerned it appears to be a ques-tion of fact and it is concluded by the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court on this question.
3. Mr. J. Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the appellant, however sough to contend that the Revenue had also sought to raise questions regarding the applicability and interpretation of Section 80-M of the Act The learned counsel says that when leave was granted in these matters the decision of this Court in Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243 was holding the field. Subsequently, the said decision was overruled in Distribu-tors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. (1985) 155 ITR 121 Mr. Ramamurthy says that in view of the subsequent decision afore-said, we must now grant leave in respect of the other questions also and decide them on merits. We do not think that we can do that at this distance of time. We cannot review the order grant-ing leave, more so at this distance of time.
4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
1. Of the six questions which were sought to be raised by the Revenue and which application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed by the High Court, this Court granted special leave in respect of only one of the six questions namely; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the pur-chase and sales by the assessee of shares in the National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (both ordinary and preference) and the Kohinoor Mills Ltd. should be considered as regular dealings and not by way of investment and that the profits or losses in respect of these transactions be taken on revenue account?”
2. So far as this question is concerned it appears to be a ques-tion of fact and it is concluded by the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court on this question.
3. Mr. J. Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the appellant, however sough to contend that the Revenue had also sought to raise questions regarding the applicability and interpretation of Section 80-M of the Act The learned counsel says that when leave was granted in these matters the decision of this Court in Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243 was holding the field. Subsequently, the said decision was overruled in Distribu-tors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. (1985) 155 ITR 121 Mr. Ramamurthy says that in view of the subsequent decision afore-said, we must now grant leave in respect of the other questions also and decide them on merits. We do not think that we can do that at this distance of time. We cannot review the order grant-ing leave, more so at this distance of time.
4. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
