Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing The Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Zamindar Of Singampatti on 21 February, 1922

B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Avergal ... vs The Right Honourable The Secretary Of ... on 31 July, 1928

4. The next point is whether the appellant is entitled to recover the money paid under a mistake of law. As already observed, three payments were made on 5th July, 1920, 25th April, 1921 and 21st April, 1922 and the suit was brought on 22nd June, 1925. The suit in respect of the first two payments is clearly barred as it was brought more than three years after the date of payment. As the Court of institution closed on 20th April, 1925 and re-opened on 22nd June, 1925, the last payment was within the period of limitation. Granting that Section 14 does not apply to the case, the question is whether the amount paid on 21st April, 1922 could be recovered in the circumstances of the case. It is well established that a payment made under a mistake of law cannot be recovered, but it is urged for the appellant that the payment was made under duress or coercion and therefore the amount is recoverable. The decision in The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 (F.B.) was on 21st February, 1922. The assessment notice was dated, 31st March, 1922 and payment was made on 21st April, 1922. The Rajah of Ramnad in his return of taxable1 income made in pursuance of the Income-tax Act included wrongly the items of income derived from forests and fisheries.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Yuvarajah Of Pithapuram And Another vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Madras. on 10 December, 1945

In inclining to the opinion that income from forests was agricultural income, the learned Judges who decided Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti were obviously influenced by the opinion which they had formed on the main question, namely, that no other tax beyond that involved in the payment of peishkush could be levied on income derived from a permanently settled estate. There is ample authority for holding that income derived from trees which have grown wild is not agricultural income, but without the aid of authority, we should have no hesitation in saying that to describe it as such would involve a distortion of the meaning of the word "agriculture."
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 December, 1945

In inclining to the opinion that income from forests was agricultural income, the learned Judges who decided Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 (F.B.) were obviously influenced by the opinion which they had formed on the main question, namely, that no other tax beyond that involved in the payment of peishkush could be levied on income derived from a permanently settled estate. There is ample authority for holding that income derived from trees which have grown wild is not agricultural income, but without the aid of authority, we should have no hesitation in saying that to describe it as such would involve a distortion of the meaning of the word " agriculture".
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Emperor vs Probhat Chandra Barua on 8 June, 1924

The Full Court of the Madras High Court, in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 having regard both to a Sanad and to Madras Regulation XXV of 1802 under the terms of which the zamindari in question in that case was settled, has recently decided that the terms of these documents exempted the zamindar of such permanently settled estates from taxes which might be imposed thereafter as well as to taxes in force at the time of the Sanad; and that although it is competent to the Legislature to withdraw or modify such an exemption by a subsequent enactment, this can only be done expressly and not in general terms or by implication".
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax U. P., C. P., ... on 4 September, 1946

From here we proceed to consider cases under the Income-tax Act. A large number were cited but those dealing with forests are not many. Of them Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti. thought, without deciding the point, that "forestry" might be regarded as agriculture. We stress, however, the use of the word "forestry" as opposed to "forest".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 25 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

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

assessee derived income from forests of spontaneous growth by the sale of wood, bark, leaves, other usufruct of trees, minor forest produce and licence fees and from trees that had grown wild in non-forest areas. The Zamindari of Pithapuram was a permanently settled estate under the Permanent Settlement Regulation (Regulation XXV of 1802) and it was contended that the imposition of income-tax in respect of income other than agricultural income derived from a permanently settled estate would not be a breach of Regulation XXV of 1802 relating to permanent settlement. Reliance was placed in support of this position on the decision in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

King-Emperor vs Rajah Probhat Chandra Baruah on 14 March, 1927

61. The argument that it was only the revenue payable by the lands and not the entire demand of the State for all income or profits referable to the estates was fixed by the Permanent Settlement loses sight of the fact that income or profits from fisheries were taken into account. The object of the Settlement in exempting from further burden income which had already paid toll to the State in the shape of land revenue was primarily to protect and improve agriculture, as that then was the chief source of income, and the exemption of agricultural income from the operation of the Income-tax Act perhaps indicates a continuity of policy on the part of the legislature in that respect. This, to my mind, is the inwardness of the doubt expressed by the learned Judges who constituted the Full Bench in the case of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Zamindar of singampatti A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 325 as to the meaning of 'agricultural income.' The words of the Settlement however are clear enough as indicating an intention to leave untouched for all times to come the surplus that the landholder will be able to derive as income or profits from the lands of his estate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

A.L.V.R.P. Veerappa Chettiar ... vs Municipal Council Represented By Its ... on 5 December, 1924

6. The petitioner raised a further ground of objection, namely, that since all his Zamin land rents are already taxed to a fixed peishkush, this peishkush cannot be increased by any further tax by Government, either directly by Government itself or indirectly by Government authorising a Municipality to tax such rent without a direct statutory declaration of its interference with his permanent Sanad rights. He quoted Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) ILR 45 Mad. 518 in aid of his contention that the State cannot authorise a Municipality to levy a tax which it cannot itself levy. This question is not free from difficulty but need not be decided in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1