Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing E. C. Danby vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 3 February, 1944

Bhagavandas Narayandas And Others vs Agricultural Income-Tax Officer, ... on 22 August, 1967

In the case of interest also, as in the case of salary, the ultimate source from which interest was paid out might be income from the agricultural property, but the person who received the payment, namely the partner did not receive it as part of the profits from the agricultural property but as a return for the loan he advanced to the partnership. An analogy can be deduced in the case payment of interest from the principles which have been referred to earlier in this judgment as laid down in E. C. Danby v. Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of payment of an amount to a partner as salary or remuneration. Advance of a loan by a partner is also not capital since such advance forms no part of the agreement that constituted the partnership; it is distinct loan, advanced separately which has never been treated by the partners as part of the capital. For the aforesaid reasons, the payment of interest on such loan cannot be construed as income out of which 60% can be assessed as agricultural income.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mathew Abraham vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 19 November, 1962

In support of this position we may refer to the decision of the Patna High Court in E. C. Danby v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case a partnership consisting of the assessee and his brother owned agricultural properties. Under an arrangement between them the assessee received in the course of the accounting year a sum of Rs. 5,805 as remuneration for managing the agricultural properties. The question was whether that remuneration was exempt from income-tax as agricultural income. It was held that the remuneration was in the nature of salary and it was not exempt from taxation under section 4 (3) (viii). Fazl Ali C.J. observed thus at page 353 :
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

The Forest Development Corportion ... vs The Addtional Commissioner & 2 Others on 3 August, 2017

(m) In E.C.Danby .vs. CIT, 12 ITR 351, the Patna High Court held that the payment received by an assessee as remuneration for managing agricultural properties of partnership firm could not be said to be derived from land so as to classify it as agricultural income. The remuneration received was in the nature of salary. Mere fact that the ultimate source of salary was agricultural property would not make any difference. This is because the income was not received out of profits or sale of agricultural produce but remuneration due to Manager as a salary for looking after the property. The distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant is that, in the above case, the income received in the hands of ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:43:17 ::: 27 itl77.04.odt the Manager is for managing agricultural property where as in the present case the appellant is a cultivator performing only agricultural operations and therefore, the source of his income in his hands is agricultural income. This distinction overlooks the fact that no income has been derived from the agricultural land in which the agricultural produce has been generated. If agricultural produce has been sold the income which arose therefrom would be in the nature of agricultural income. In the present case, the appellant is only providing Services and it is assured of its income on rendering of the Services in terms of the contract dated 23.9.1999. Therefore, the decision of the Patna High Court would squarely apply to the present facts.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M S Sanklecha - Full Document

S. A. Ramaraj vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 16 August, 1968

The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and its income for the assessment year 1964-65 with which we are concerned in this case consists of income from its own lands and income received from registered firm of which the family was a partner. Shri S. A. Ramaraj, the karta of the family also received an income of Rs. 3,600 as remuneration as managing partner of one of the said firms. It is not disputed that this sum of Rs. 3,600 would be the income of the Hindu undivided family. The only question is whether it is agricultural income or non-agricultural income. A reading of the definition of agricultural income in the Act is sufficient to say that remuneration received by a person of r managing agricultural property would not be agricultural income. The position is also well settled by a number of decisions. Reference may be made to the decision of the Patna High Court in E. C. Danby v. Commissioner of Income-tax the decision of the Privy Council in Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax In the result, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to Appellate Tribunal as required by section 60(6) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1