M/S. RAJPUTANA TEXTILES (AGENCIES) LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the transaction of buying the managing agency and the block of shares was of a commercial nature and possessed all the attributes of an adventure in the nature of trade. The Court reasoned that the assessee company was floated with the intention of acquiring the managing agency and shares, but it did not intend to hold the entire block of shares. The promoters had made arrangements for the sale of a significant portion of these shares even before the purchase agreement was finalized. The sale of these shares at a profit was essential for financing the transaction and securing the managing agency. The Court also held that a constitutional question under Article 14 could not be raised in the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as its power was confined to the questions that arose before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd., was incorporated in May 1943 with a paid-up capital of Rs. 20 lakhs. It was promoted to obtain the Managing Agency of Apollo Mills Ltd. and to acquire 19,76,000 shares held by M/s. Sassoon & Co., Ltd. The total cost for the managing agency and shares was substantial. As the company's capital was insufficient, its promoters arranged to sell approximately 13.74 lakh shares to brokers. The sale of these shares generated an excess of Rs. 16,52,600 over the purchase price. The Income-tax Officer initially did not consider this excess taxable profit. The case was referred to the Investigation Commission, which found the transaction to be an adventure in the nature of trade and directed appropriate assessment. The assessee then referred the question to the High Court under Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. The High Court upheld the Commission's finding.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the purchase and sale of approximately 13.74 lakh shares by the assessee company constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, making the resulting profit taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act and Excess Profits Tax Act. The assessee contended that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade, and the profit was not taxable. The revenue argued that the transaction was indeed an adventure in the nature of trade. The Supreme Court also considered whether a constitutional question under Article 14 could be raised in the advisory jurisdiction proceedings. The assessee sought to raise additional questions before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed by the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 8(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- • I S.C.R. ·suPREME COURT REPORTS M/s. RAJPUTANA TEXTILES (AGENCIES) LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY 917 (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Income Tax-Business transaction-Whether adventure in the nature of trade-Intention of the assessee-Pro.fits-Whether revenue or capital receipt-Advisory juri iction-Points not taken before High Court-Whether could be raised before the Supreme Court- Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, r947 (30 of r947), s. 8(5).
The assessee company was promoted with .the idea of obtaining the Managing Agency of the Appollo Mills from M/s. Sassoon & Co., Ltd., who were holding 19,76,000 shares out of a total of 25 lakhs shares of Rs. 2 each. According to the agreement the assessee company had to take the whole of the block of shares belonging to the Sassoons and pay at Rs. 4-4-0 per share Rs. 12} lakhs for the managing agency. As the assessee company had only Rs. 20 lakhs as its paid up capital, it was necessary to sell 13 lakhs odd shares in order to pay off the Sassoons both for the Managing Agency and the shares. There- fore during the course of ne
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
