Ddit, New Delhi vs M/S. Eservglobal Sa, New Delhi on 19 January, 2017
o Graphite vs CIT [188 ITR 146]
o Jyotikana vs CIT [26 ITR 424];
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.60 seconds)Documents citing
Jyotikana Chowdhurani And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam. on 10 August, 1953
Satya Prakash Gupta, Allahabad vs Acit, Allahabad on 15 March, 2023
In Jyotikana Choudhurani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam [1954]
26 ITR 424, which is also under appeal before us in Civil Appeals Nos. 57 to 62, a
Special Bench of the Assam High Court considered whether income derived by the
assessees from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth where there was no planting or
sowing or employment of any human agency for the purpose of tilling the land but
operations in forestry were carried on by the assessee involving considerable
expenditure of human skill and labour was agricultural income within the meaning of
section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The majority of the Court consisting of
Sarjoo Prasad, C.J., and Ram Labhaya, J., (Deka, J., dissenting) held that even though
there was no tilling of the land or planting of seed or saplings and the trees were of
spontaneous germination, the operations carried on by the assessees were conducive to
the growth and development of the trees and in essence involved the expenditure of
human skill and labour on the land itself. Those operations were "agricultural
operations" and the land on which the trees stood was being used for "agricultural
purposes" and, therefore, the income from the sale of the trees was "agricultural
income" and was exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act.
Collector Of C. Ex., New Delhi vs Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. on 8 April, 1986
[1953] 24 ITR 70 (Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy v. C.I.T., West Bengal) and [1954] 26 ITR 424 (Jyotikana Chowdhurani and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam) were also relied on for the same purpose. The Tribunal, according to Shri Sorabji, had no option to disregard the decision of the Delhi High Court which arose in this case and had to follow that ruling despite the view having been dissented from the Bombay High Court.
Vikram Deo Varma, Maharaja Of Jeypore vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 21 April, 1955
In the second case Jyotikana Chowdhurani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam the facts found were that the trees were of spontaneous growth and there was no planting. The operations in forestry carried on by the assessee were reservation of blocks for operation in rotation, marking of trees fit for selling, creeper and climber cutting, thinning and removal of diseased and unsound trees, clearing of under-growth, allowing grazing during a certain season, burning of undergrowth and protection from fire. It was held by the majority that though the trees were of spontaneous generation, the operations carried on by the assessee were conducive to the growth and development of the trees and involved expenditure of human skill and labour on the land itself. The land was, therefore, being used for agricultural purposes and the income was held to be agricultural income.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957
In Jyotikana Chowdhurani v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Assam (3) which is also under appeal before us in Civil
Appeals Nos. 57 to 62, a Special Bench of the Assam High
Court considered whether income, derived by the assessees
from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth where there was
no planting or sowing or employment of any human agency for
the purpose of tilling the land but operations in forestry
were carried on by the assessee involving considerable
expenditure of human skill and labour was agricultural
income within the meaning of s. 2 (1) (a) of the Indian
Income Tax Act. The majority of the Court consisting of
Sarjoo Prasad C.J. and Ram Labhaya J. (Deka J. dissenting)
held that even though there was no tilling of the land or
planting of seed or saplings and the trees were of
spontaneous germination, the operations carried on by the
assessees were conducive to the growth and development of
the trees and in essence involved the expenditure of human
skill and labour on the land itself. Those operations were
"agricultural operations" and the land on which the trees
stood was being used for "agricultural purposes" and,
therefore, the income from the sale of the trees was
"agricultural income" and was exempt from taxation under s.
4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act.
Raja Priyanand Prasad Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 25 March, 1957
On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on a decision of the Assam High Court in Jyotikana Chowdhurani and Others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.
Priyanand Prasad Singh vs Income Tax Officer on 25 March, 1957
On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on a decision of the Assam High Court in Jyotikana Chowdhurani v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Assam, 1954-26 ITR 424: (AIR 1954 Assam 113) (SB) (C). In that case, the learned Judges of the Assam High Court considered the decision of this Court in 1952-22 ITR 1: (AIR 1952 All 845) (B) cited above and differed from the view taken in that case. The learned Chief Justice, delivering his judgment, divided the various cases on this point into three groups and was of the view that the case decided by this Court, cited above, fell in the second group in which it had been held that ploughing or tilling were not the only decisive factors in agricultural operations but that human labour and skill must be spent in operations upon the land itself, e.g., in the shape of sowing, planting, hosing, watering, manuring etc.
The third group of cases, the learned Chief Justice held, laid down the correct view that if human skill and labour is employed, to aid the growth of the trees, even if the trees are of spontaneous germination, the operations are agricultural operations. In this class the learned Chief Justice included cases where human labour and skill may have been so employed as to exploit the land to its best advantage and make it yield to its products or things growing on the land, its maximum nutriment--be it crop or fruit or vegetable or trees and the process in each case should and must be regarded as 'agricultural process".
1