Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (3.12 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Probhat Chandra Barua on 8 June, 1924

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V.T.S. Sevuga Pandia Thevar on 11 May, 1932

In Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua (1924) I.L.R. 51 Cal. 504 it was held that income derived from fisheries, and from sthaliat (i.e., land used for stacking timber) is not "agricultural income" or "income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes" within the meaning of Sections 2 and 4 of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). The question is discussed by Rankin, J. (as he then was) at page 524 :
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jhalak Prasad Singh And Others vs Province Of Bihar. on 17 April, 1941

From this brief history of the income-tax law, it appears that the Central Government did tax agricultural income when it wanted to do so but for many years past for certain reasons of policy such income was exempted from taxation. Then came the Government of India Act which expressly authorized the Provinces to tax agricultural income the authority so conferred being as unqualified as the exemption given in regard to agricultural income under the Income-tax Act. Why should not then the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act be taken to be a repeal of the earlier enactment, because the language which is used in this Act is universal and comprehensive. The Act purports to tax "the total agricultural income of every person" (Section 2) and Section 4 recites in express terms the Act shall apply to all agricultural income derived from land situated in the Province of Bihar. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that it was intended to apply to lands other than those comprised within the permanently settled estates, or to exclude the liability of so large a class of tax-payers as are holders of permanently settled estates in Bihar. If these persons were intended to be excluded the Legislature would have used apt words to express its meaning. I think that I might usefully quote here the following observations of Hamilton, J., which were quoted by Rankin, J., in Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua (1924) 51 Cal. 504 at p.520.
Patna High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957

Whatever may have been the genesis of the exemption of agricultural income from income-tax, the liability to pay land revenue or fixed peishkush under Regulation XXV of 1902 was not considered by Rankin J. as a deterrent against the levy of incometax in appropriate cases, even on certain classes of income derived from the permanently settled estates, if that was the clear intention of the legislature. The 153 learned Judge observed in Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua (1):
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Satya Prakash Gupta, Allahabad vs Acit, Allahabad on 15 March, 2023

Whatever may have been the genesis of the exemption of agricultural income from income-tax, the liability to pay land revenue or fixed peishkush under Regulation XXV of 1802 was not considered by Rankin, J., as a deterrent against the levy of income-tax in appropriate cases, even on certain classes of income derived from the permanently settled estates, if that was the clear intention of the legislature. The learned Judge observed in Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua [1924] ILR 51 Cal. 504:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 75 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jyotikana Chowdhurani And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam. on 10 August, 1953

This case is merely an authority for the proposition that where the growth is entirely spontaneous and there is no employment of human labour and skill, the income cannot be agricultural. This proposition is undisputed, and the case is therefore of not much assistance for determining the point now in controversy. Mr. Iyengar has also pointed out that Rankin, J., in Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua, doubted whether the legislature wanted to include "forestry" in the expression "agriculture". He did not go into the matter fully nor did he give any considered decision.
Gauhati High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next