Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kamakhya Narayan Singh on 6 June, 1948
8. The conflicting points of view are put with clarity in the judgment of Braund J. in Sarju Bai v. Commr. of Inc. Tax at pp. 144-145 where he expresses himself as follows :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.90 seconds)Documents citing
Mst. Sarju Bai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 30 April, 1946
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Eastern Seafoods Exports (P.) Ltd. on 20 October, 1994
The conflicting points of view are put with clarity in the judgment of Braund J., in Sarju Bai v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 137 (All) at pages 144, 145, where he expresses himself as follows :
Chola Fish & Farms P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 April, 1995
"The conflicting points of view are put with clarity in the judgment of Braund J., in Sarju Bai vs. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 137 (All), at pages 144, 145 where he expresses himself as follows :
Raja Bahadur Major Raja Durga Narain ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. & C. P. on 21 February, 1947
The next question is also covered by a recent decision of this Court in Mst. Sarju Bai v. Commissioner of Income-tax. A Bench of this Court considered the question whether interest on arrears of rent of agricultural land realised by an assessee under Section 146 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act was "agricultural income" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, and it came to the conclusion that it was so. The reason given by the Bench, with which we are in entire agreement, is that interest can be classified as coming within the larger expression "revenue" and as it is made a statutory attributable of arrears of rent it must be held as agricultural income. As was pointed in that case, if there had been no tenancy, there would have been no arrears of rent and if there had been no arrears of rent, there would have been no statutory interest, and following the sequence of causes it was held that it was revenue derived from land. It is not necessary for us to discuss this matter at any length in view of the Bench decision of this Court mentioned above. We, therefore, answer this question in the affirmative.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, ... vs M/S Khattri Perfumers[P]Ltd. ... on 20 August, 2013
(ii) Mst. Sarju Bai vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1947] 15 ITR 137 (All);
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. vs Rao Thakur Narayan Singh. on 23 April, 1962
Next, the case of Sarju Bai v. Commissioner of Income-tax may be referred to. In this case it was emphasised that a question of this kind, namely, whether a certain receipt in certain circumstances was a capital receipt or income was a question of fact. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case referred to above also emphasised that it is a question depending upon the facts brought on the record by the income-tax authorities. Here, the Tribunal has not found any facts which would displace the ordinary presumption which arises in law that a lump sum payment for the grant of a lease-right in perpetuity to build upon the property amounts to a capital receipt and not to a revenue or income receipt. If there was anything in the contract of lease to show that the payment was being made in lump sum by way of capitalisation of the rental income of the property, it might have been possible to treat the payment as a revenue or income payment, but there is no such material here.
1