Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 198 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957

Havakkal Estate Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 September, 1976

5. As we pointed out already, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). In our opinion, that decision has no bearing on the question to be considered in the present reference. That decision dealt with the meaning of the word "agriculture", in the context of and, in relation to, a forest of natural and spontaneous growth. While considering that question, the Supreme Court elaborately went into what would constitute agricultural operations and referred to the distinction between basic operations and subsequent operations. In that case, since the growth was natural and spontaneous, there were no basic operations carried out by the assessee at all and, only in that context, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the subsequent operations would not render the income derived from such forest as an agricultural income since the original growth was a spontaneous and natural one.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bihar ... vs Sri Ramakrishna Deo on 14 October, 1958

To appreciate the true import of these observations, we must have regard to the context in which they occur. The facts found in that case were that portions of the forest which was originally of spontaneous growth had gradually been denuded, that the propritor had planted trees in the areas so denuded, that this had gone on for a period of over 150 years, and that therefore " the whole of the income derived from (1) [1958] S.C.R. 101, 155, 158, 160.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

State Of Tamilnadu (By Commissioner Of ... vs V.G.P. Housing (P.) Ltd. And Another on 18 August, 1992

18. However, even though the present case it not falling under section 2(a)(2), but only under section 2(a)(1), yet in view of the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that coconut and casuarina tress have been grown on the abovesaid land (which fact is also not disputed by learned counsel for the assessee before us), it has to be seen how much portion of the abovesaid entire 53 acres is so found with such trees or other trees or plants grown on the said land during the relevant previous years in question, which would go to show how much part of it was used for "agricultural" purposes, in the light of the abovesaid Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. This use of the said land for agricultural purposes may be even by the lessee and not by the lessor at all, yet, to the extent to which any portion of the abovesaid land is used for such agricultural purposes, the rent got by the lessor-assessee would be agricultural income in its hands. As already pointed out, the purpose for which the land was leased out is an immaterial consideration to decide the question whether the income in relation to the land is agricultural income or not. Likewise, any stipulation contained in the lease deed is also irrelevant and the fact that the land is not assessed to land revenue, but the building thereon is assessed to house tax is also irrelevant. The fact that the income in question was assessed to tax under the Central enactment may not also be material since the said assessment may sometimes be a wrong assessment also. So, independently, the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act have to come to a conclusion in the light of the law as enunciated by the relevant provisions of the Act and the decisions of the court while interpreting those provisions.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jugal Kishore Arora vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 May, 2004

It would extend to cultivation of all commodities of (i) food value, such as, sugarcane vide CIT v. Ravalgoan Sugar Farm Ltd. [1947] 15 ITR 297 (Bom) ; Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 611 (Bom) ; tea vide Kaju Mal v. Salig Ram, AIR 1924 PC 1 ; [1924] ILR 5 Lah 50 (PC), coffee vide CIT v. Diwan Bahadur S.L. Mathias [1939] 7 ITR 48 (PC) ; affirming CIT v. Diwan Bahadur S.L. Mathias [1937] 5 ITR 435 (Mad), coconuts vide Ven-kayya v. Ramasami [1899] ILR 22 Mad 39 (coconut growing is agricultural purpose) ; Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan [1901] ILR 24 Mad 421 (a coconut garden is a fruit garden) ; S.M. Narayanan Ayyangar v. Subramanian Chettiar [1937] ILR 1937 Mad 364 [FB] ; AIR 1937 Mad 254, mangoes vide Saro-jini Devi v. Sri Kristna, AIR 1944 Mad 401 ; Deen Mohammad Mian v. Hulas Narain Singh, AIR 1942 Patna 296 (299, 300) affirmed in the Federal Court on another point in Hulas Narian v. Deen Mohammad Mian, AIR 1943 FC 9 ; [1943] ILR 22 Patna 428 ; cf Raja Bahadur Major Raja Durga Narain Singh v. CIT, [1947] 15 ITR 235 (All), orange, jack fruit, tamarind and plantains vide CIT v. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259, 274 (Mad) (ii) artistic and decorative value, such as, flowers and creepers ; (iii) trade or commercial value, such as, cotton, indigo, jute, hemp, linen, rubber, tobacco, groundnuts, castor seeds, tendu leaves and horra nuts ; (iv) housing value such as, bamboo, timber vide CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and palmyra vide CIT v. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259 (Mad) ; (v) fuel value, such as, casuarina vide CIT v. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259 (Mad) ; Pavadai Pathan v. Ramaswami Chetty, AIR 1922 Mad 351 ; Chand-ramani Patta Mahadevi v. Municipal Council [1945] 2 MLJ 315 ; AIR 1946 Mad 143, (vi) medicinal and health value such as, cardamoms vide S.K. Kadirvel-sami Naicker v. S.P. Sultan Ahmed Badruddin Rowther, AIR 1947 Mad 160, arecanuts and betel and the whole gamut of oshadhis ; and (vii) all things edible or otherwise deriving nutriment from the soil.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Shri Puransingh M. Verma vs The C.I.T on 11 November, 2014

"Our attention was then invited by learned counsel to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Rumor Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466, which is the leading case of "agriculture". It was held therein that agriculture in its primary sense denotes the cultivation of the field and is restricted to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term, meaning thereby tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land and these are basic operations, which require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself. The apex court further held that besides the basic operations, the subsequent operations would also be comprehended within the terms of agriculture, and such subsequent operations are illustrated as weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowth and all operations which foster the growth and preservation of the same not only from insects and pests, but also from depradation, from outside, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting and rendering the produce fit for the market, which would all be agricultural operations, when taken in conjunction with the basic operations.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Sri U M Ramesh Rao vs Union Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

Following the judgment in Mohammed Basheer K.P. and Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra), it was observed that the connotation of the term 'agriculture' must be given an expanded interpretation to comprise within its scope the basic as well as the subsequent operations of cultivation of -: 60 :- land to grow crops to raise products. The products may be grain or vegetables or fruits, which are necessary for the sustenance of human beings, including plantations and groves, or grass or pasture for consumption of beasts or articles of luxury such as betel, coffee, tea, spices, tobacco, etc., or commercial crops like cotton, flax, jute, hemp, indigo, etc. That agriculture cannot be confined merely to the production of grain and food products for human beings and beasts but it must also include all products of the land which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce which also include forest products.
Karnataka High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 2 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next