Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing The Secretary To The Chief Commissioner ... vs Zemindar Of Singampatti on 21 February, 1922

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

325 and could have refused to pay the amount, even if he was unsuccessful in his representation on to the Income Tax authorities that the income from forests and fisheries was not liable to be assessed under the Income Tax Act, and he chose to do none of these things but paid the amount on 21st April, 1922, i.e., two months after the decision in Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Zemindar of Singampatti 70 Ind. Cas. 504 : 45 M. 518 : 15 L.W. 496 : (1922) M.W.N. 353 : 31 M.L.T. 21 : A.I.R. 1922 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Probhat Chandra Barua vs Emperor on 8 January, 1924

57. It will be observed that the provisions of the charging sections though wide enough to catch the items of income in question on this Reference, are quite general in character, and that in Chapter III no reference is made to the chargeability of lands other than lands appurtenant to buildings of which the assessee is the owner; the income from such property as that in question being included, if at all, under the heading "other sources of income" in Sections 6 and 12. The Full Court; of the Madras High Court, in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 325 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 9 - Full Document

Province Of Bihar vs Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi Deo Of ... on 17 April, 1941

The Commissioner of Income-tax appears to have thought that income derived from timber in virgin forests was income derived from land used for agricultural purposes. In his view trees were undoubtedly a crop and the practice of forestry formed part of agricultural. He relied upon the case of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) 45 Mad. 518; 1 I.T.C. 181. In that case, however, the learned Judges appear to have thought that income from forests and fisheries might be regarded as agricultural income, though they pointed out that it was not necessary to determine whether such was the case or not.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

Sri Vedaranyaswaraswami Devastanam By ... vs State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 4 December, 1962

This provision is relied on to show that as the inam title 1 deed granted the land tax-free, the provisions contained in the title deed would prevail over any subsequent enactment that the legislature might choose to pass. Reference was also made in this connection to the decision In Secy, of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamlndar of Singampatti, ILR 45 Mad 518 : (AIR 1922 Mad 325) (FB), where a Full Bench of this Court held that the income from permanently settled estate was exempt from further taxation by the Government even by way of income tax.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

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

12. We have now to decide whether the income derived from forests of spontaneous growth and from trees which have grown wild in non-forest areas represents agricultural income within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act. As we have indicated, the learned Judges who decided Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 (F.B.) were inclined to the view that income from forests and fisheries would be agricultural income, although they did not decide this question. It is very difficult to see how income from fisheries could be classified as agricultural income.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy vs Commr. Of Income-Tax, West Bengal on 27 May, 1953

It was contended in the second place that, in any event, the decision in the Kapurthala case (C), even if it was information, was not "definite" information, because a judicial decision was liable to be overruled and also because in the present case there was in fact another decision in the contrary sense, reported in -- 'Secy, to the Chief Commr. of Income-Tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Singampatti AIR 1922 Mad 325 (FB) (E).
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

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

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Singampatti (2) was a reference arising out of the assessment for income tax under Act VII of 1918 of the income derived by the Zamindar of Singampatti from forests and fisheries within the ambit of his Zamindari. The assessee objected to the assessment (i) on the ground that the income was agricultural income within the meaning of s. 4 of the Act and, therefore, not chargeable to income-tax;
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

86. There is a further consideration which has weighed with me in arriving at the opinion that I have formed. The case of Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Singampatti A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 325, was decided by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court so far back as February 1922. I do not think it makes any difference that there was a Sanad in that case as the Sanad did not profess to go beyond the Regulation, viz. 25 of 1802. The law so far as that Presidency is concerned must be taken to have been settled then. In January 1924 the law so far as the province of Behar and Orissa is concerned was settled much in the same way. The Income-Tax Act which is an all India enactment has been amended so recently as in 1926 (Act. 24 of 1926) and yet no attempt has been made to get rid of those decisions. It is said that a provision for an appeal has now been made; but does that meet the point? It is hardly reasonable to suppose that a fiscal enactment has been left neglected in that way.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next