Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax U. P., C. P., ... on 4 September, 1946

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

Whether the sale proceeds from sal forests or forest trees represented revenue receipts of the proprietors or capital receipts has been an old question and is covered by numerous decisions of the Courts in India and of the Privy Council and to mention a few amongst those authorities :-Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Manavedan Tirumulpad, Yuvarajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Maharaja of Kapurthala v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal v. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, west Bengal, Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Benoy Ratan Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath, Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pratap Singh Balbeer Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and it was in keeping with this line of decisions that this Court held in Jyotirindra Narayan v. State of Assam, that the receipts from the sale of the sal trees were revenue receipts of the proprietors and in answer to the point No. 2 under reference it was held that the amounts so received were to be treated as "agricultural income" assessable under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act.
Gauhati High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury ... vs The State Of Assam on 9 May, 1950

32. It may be observed that in spite of the diversity as to the scope and purpose of agriculture as revealed by the different definitions, there is one feature which is essentially common to all of these. This is the application of human skill and labour without which there can be no agriculture. Thus trees or even forests of spontaneous growth cannot be regarded as the result of any agricultural process. Income derived from such trees cannot be regarded as agricultural income. This aspect of the matter was brought out clearly by their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court in Beohar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1948] 16 I.T.R. 433 : I.L.R. 1947 Nag. 425 in the following passage:
Gauhati High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury ... vs The State Of Assam. on 9 May, 1950

It may be observe that in spite of the diversity as to the scope and purpose of agriculture as revealed by the different definitions, there is one feature which is essentially common to all of these. This is the application of human skill and labour without which there can be no agriculture. Thus trees or even forests of spontaneous growth cannot be regarded as the result of any agricultural process. Income derived from such trees cannot be regarded as agricultural income. This aspect of the matter was brought out clearly by their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court in Beohar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, in the following passag :
Gauhati High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sujaniram Daryaosingh vs Lal Shyamshah And Lal Bhagwan Shah And ... on 4 February, 1953

In recent times, dictionaries have been freely made use of by Courts in determining the meaning of various words occurring in statutes: See - 'Wamanrao Deorao v. Shrikumar Jaikumar' AIR 1946 Nag 42 (J): - 'Beohar Singh v. Commr of Income-tax' AIR 1948 Nag 228 (K); - 'Nisha Kanto v. Smt. Saroj Bashini' ; and - 'Harish Chandra v. Rex' AIR 1949 All 15 (M).
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1961

Thus far the judgment is on the same lines as in New Piecegoods Bazaar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and an earlier decision of the Nagpur High Court in Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax. When the case came back on the further statement under section 66(4), criticising certain remarks therein, that the court had no power to direct the Tribunal to refer a question not argued before it, the court observed that they were made under a misconception, and quoted the observations of Chagla, C.J., in Madanlal Dharnidharkav. Commissioner of Income-tax (4) extracted above, with approval. This can hardly be said to be a decision on the present point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 302 - Full Document

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

A decision of the Nagapur High Court in Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., C.P. and Berar [1948] 16 ITR 433 (delivered on September 4, 1946, but reported in 1948), may be noted here. There also the income in question was derived by the assessee from the sale of forest produce such as timber, tendu leaves, mohua flowers, harra nuts etc., derived from a forest which was not a cultivated one but was of spontaneous growth. The question was whether such income was agricultural income and as such exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court considered the dictionary meanings of the term "agriculture" which included forestry within its compass but observed that the essence of agriculture, even when it was extended to include "forestry", was the application of human skill and labour ; without that it could neither 54 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 75 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

A decision of the Nagpur High Court in Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., C.P., and Berar (1) (delivered on September 4, 1946, but reported in 1948) may be noted here. There also the income in question was derived by the assessee from the sale of forest produce such as timber, tendu leaves, mohua flowers, harranuts etc., derived from a forest which was not a cultivated one but was of spontaneous growth. The question was whether such income was agricultural income and as such exempt from taxation under s. 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Incometax Act. The Court considered the dictionary meanings of the term "agriculture" which included forestry within its compass but observed that the essence of (1) [1948] 16 I. T.R. 433.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next