PTD 1973

1973 PLP 108 (PTD)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGALI Versus EAST COAST COMMERCIAL Co. LTD.

Jurisdiction / Court
Calcutta (India)
Decided Date
Income‑tax Reference No. 164 of 1964, decided on 12th February 1969.
Honorable Judges
S. C. Deb and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1973 PLP 108 (PTD)
Forum / Court Calcutta (India)
Bench Members S. C. Deb and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ
Parties COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGALI Versus EAST COAST COMMERCIAL Co. LTD.
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 108 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 108 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Calcutta (India) bench comprising: S. C. Deb and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 108 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGALI Versus EAST COAST COMMERCIAL Co. LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

Incometax‑‑Loss‑Dealing ire shares‑ Whether business or Investment‑Question of mixed law and fact‑Finding of TribunalInterference by High Court‑Guiding principles. The question whether the assessee's transactions amounted to dealing in shares and properties or was mere investment, is a mixed question of law and fact; the legal effect of the facts found by the Tribunal on which the assessee could he treated as a dealer or an investor, is a question of law. Where, bearing in mind the correct principles, the Tribunal had, on material before it, come to its conclusion which cannot be described as perverse or based on no evidence, the High Court will not interfere with the same even though, on re‑appreciation of facts, it may be inclined to take a different view of the matter. [In this case the tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee's dealing in shares was business and allowed the loss in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares and the charges incurred for the transfer of the shares to be deducted froth its income from business and the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.] [Caselaw referred.] Gouri Mitter with D. Sen for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal with Pronob Pal and S. Bhattacharyya for the Assessee.

Judgment & Decree

DEB, J.

I agree.