The assessees were not traders in the purchase of the shares and their resale and these were not a part of their usual trade and business or incidental to it. The transactions of purchase and sale were not repeated. The purchase of shares was not made with the sole intention to resell on profit. It was held by the Supreme Court in this very case that even in the application of this test a distinction will have to be made between initial intention to resell on a profit which is present but not a dominant or sole intention. The presence of such an intention is no doubt a relevant factor and unless it is offset by the presence of other factors, it would raise a strong presumption that the transaction is in the nature of a trade.
Dr. and Mrs. Ghosh had between them only 17.2% of the voting power and the purchasers did not want to buy the small minority holding. The assessee, aggrieved with the decision of the ITO, as referred to, appealed to the AAC. In the case of Dr. Ghosh, it was contended that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 assessed as business income was assessable as capital gains and in the case of Mrs. Ghosh it was contended that the sum of Rs. 2,22,000 assessed as business income should be assessed only as capital gains.
The intentions expressed by the assessees, according to the Tribunal, did not conflict with the plea put forth by the assessees that because of old age and failing health they wanted to dispose of their shareholdings and retire. Dr. Patel has several publications in the areas of Indian macroeconomics, monetary policy, public finance, the Indian financial sector, international trade, and regulatory economics. Dr. Urjit R. Patel assumed charge as the twenty-fourth Governor of the Reserve Bank of India effective September 4, 2016 after serving as Deputy Governor since January 2013. He was re-appointed as Deputy Governor on January 11, 2016 after completion of his first three-year term of office. Among his assignments as Deputy Governor, Dr. Patel chaired the Expert Committee to Revise and Strengthen the Monetary Policy Framework.
Dr. Patel has a Ph.D in economics from Yale University, an M. Phil from University of Oxford and a B. Dr. D. Subbarao took over on September 5, 2008 as the 22nd Governor of the Reserve crochet for beginners kit Bank of India. Dr. Subbarao has been appointed for a three-year term. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Subbarao was the Finance Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Representing India, he actively participated in steering the signing into force of the inter-governmental treaty and the Inter-Central Bank Agreement among the BRICS nations, which led to the establishment of the Contingent Reserve Arrangement , a swap line framework among the central banks of these countries. His tenure as Governor saw unprecedented central bank activism to put in place a comprehensive set of measures to strengthen and improve the competitive efficiency of the financial sector. New institutions and instruments were introduced and changes in exchange rate management culminated in the establishment of a unified exchange rate. In the field of monetary policy, his tenure saw the historic memorandum signed between the Bank and the Government whereby a cap was put on the automatic finance by the Bank to the Government in the form of ad hoc treasury bills.
The conclusion of fact drawn by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the Revenue on the ground of perversity. That being so, our task has been easier and we are required to see whether the Tribunal has applied the relevant legal principles correctly or not and in doing so has arrived at a correct decision. Even if the acquiring and passing on of controlling interest is considered in isolation, it would, in the circumstances of the case, be acquiring and parting with of a capital asset and the surplus derived therefrom cannot be a profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.
Ltd. 60 ITR 65 and in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur/Ram v. CIT . Thus, on an analysis of the cases referred to above, it appears that there is no general or universal test, according to the learned advocate, for arriving at the conclusion that the character of a transaction can be judged solely on the application of any absolute rule, principle or test, but every case is to be judged by its own facts and circumstances. In the above facts this particular transaction was held to be one of trading character and that the profit was one in respect of which the company must be properly assessed to tax.
Thus, even before the negotiations between Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Sarabhai started on May 28, 1960, (letter of this date is item on p. 124 supra) the Tribunal held that the board of directors had considered it necessary to raise the authorised capital of the company as well as to issue new shares. The Tribunal thus found that the need for additional funds was felt by the company even before the start of any negotiations between Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Sarabhai. The last submission was that even if it is assumed that a controlling interest was acquired and sold by the assessee, looking to all the circumstances, and the short space of time involved, the acquisition and parting with the controlling interest was an adventure in the nature of trade and the surplus was assessable as business income.
Support for the argument was sought to be derived from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkumar Agarwalla and Brothers v. CIT 63 ITR 622. Resolution dated June 23, 1960, of the board of directors of the company offering 62,250 ordinary shares’ to the existing shareholders. The AAC further found that neither Dr. Ghosh nor Mrs. Ghosh in the past had indulged in any trading activities and also that neither of them had bought or sold any capital asset, much less shares. Their activities in the past were stated to have been confined to the management of the company which they had nurtured from its infancy. After selling the shares, Dr. Ghosh remained as a director for name’s sake as desired by the purchasers. Mrs. Ghosh retired with a pension.