Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Probhat Chandra Barua vs Emperor on 8 January, 1924

Jhalak Prasad Singh And Others vs Province Of Bihar. on 17 April, 1941

Such being the ambit of this Act, it is now pertinent to consider the question whether the imposition of agricultural income-tax in respect of agricultural income derived by a zamindar from his permanently settled estate is to any, and if so to what, extent inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulation. Fortunately, so far as this Court is concerned, there is an authoritative decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the celebrated case in Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor (1930) 57 I.A. 228; 5 I.T.C. 1., which must guide in deciding this question. This Court must accept the pronouncement given by Lord Russell of Killowen while delivering the judgment of their Lordships and must reject an attempt to distinguish that decision upon the grounds which will be indicated hereafter. His Lordship after examining all the relevant provisions in the various Bengal Regulations of 1973 came to the conclusion that the regulation was a master regulation and then proceeded to examine its terms and specially Act. 6 which was relied by counsel before their Lordships (as it has been mainly relied upon by counsel for the plaintiffs before this Court) and held that their Lordships "are unable to find in the regulation any statement or assurance that a zamindar will never be liable to taxation in respect of the income derived from his zamindari or (to put the matter from another point of view) that a zamindar will, as to so much of his property as consists of income derived from his zamindari be exempt from schemes of taxation applicable generally to the incomes of the inhabitants of British India".
Patna High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Emperor vs Indu Bhusan Sarkar on 11 February, 1926

313 : 6 P. L. T. 855. arrived at the same conclusion as that which I expressed in Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor It is highly important that questions affecting the liability of the subject to taxation should not remain in doubt, and notwithstanding the dissentient views of Rankin, and Mullick, JJ., it is satisfactory that a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, and a Division Bench of the High Courts at Calcutta and Patna which have been invited to express an opinion on this important matter have each now answered the question propounded in the same sense, and are of opinion that income derived from sources such as that which is the subject-matter of this Reference is, not assessable to income-tax.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 June, 1926

L.R. 920 : (1923) M.W.N. 557 : A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 138 : 33 M.L.T. 267 : 45 M.L.J. 592 : 18 L.W. 918 : 39 C.L.J. 302 (P.C.), Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor and Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor , an assesee is in a much less favourable position. In certain specified circumstances, no doubt, he may require the Commissioner of Income Tax to refer a question of law to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, and if the Commissioner refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee may apply to the High Court for an order compelling the Commissioner to state a case. As the law stands at present, however, there is no way in which an assessee is able to challenge the decision which the High Court has given on a reference. In this Court it is the practice that income-tax references are normally heard by a Division Bench of two Judges. But there is no provision in the Income Tax Act or elsewhere to prevent such references being heard by a Single Judge.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prafulla Kamini Roy Wondow Of Taranath ... vs Bhabani Nath Roy And Ors. on 8 July, 1925

Thomas Conservators v. Hall (1868) 3 C.P. 415 : 37 L.J.C.P. 163 : 18 L.T. 364 : 16 W.R. 971, and Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor 84 Ind. Cas. 31 : 51 C. 504 : (1924) A.I.R. (C) 668. That the two rules are incompatible, I apprehend, will be conceded but are they also applicable to the same subject-matter? Can it reasonably be suggested that the two enactments are able to stand together because Section 575 does not apply to the High Courts but to some other Courts, and, therefore, in relation to appeals to the High Court that the provisions of Clause 36 are still in force. By Sections 5 and 8 of the C.P.C., of 1877 and 1882, however, the Small Cause Courts are excluded expressly from the ambit of the appeal sections of these Codes, (see. also Sections 7 and 8 and Os.L. and LI of the Code of 1908). To what Courts other than the High Courts, therefore, were the provisions of Section 575 intended to, or can they, apply? I kuow of none. In my opinion, it is an irresistible inference from the provisions of the Code of 1877 that it was intended that Section 575 should be applied to all appeals which up till the time of its enactment were within the ambit of Section 36 of the Letters Patent. It is to be remembered that the Code of 1877 contains no saving clause, similar to Section 4 of the Code of 1908. On the contrary, by Sections 631 and 632 the Codes of 1877 and 1882 in express terms are made applicable to the Chartered High Courts, except as provided by Section 638, which contains no reference to Section 575. Moreover, some doubt having arisen as to whether the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court included the exercise of its powers of revision, by Section 628, a rule was applied to applications for review similar to that which governed appeals.
Calcutta High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... vs Raja Sri Sri Kalyani Deo, Panchkote. on 14 December, 1944

The Appellate Tribunal took the contrary view which may be expressed in their own words : "Most of the income assessed arose out of the revenue paying Estate No. 19 of Manbhum Collectorate. The revenue payable is Rs. 54,527-0-0. The claim to deduct this was disallowed on the ground that Section 12 of the Act does not make it a permissible deduction so that no enquiry was held to apportion it amongst the lands out of which the income assessed arose. It is submitted that if the whole figure cannot be deducted an enquiry should be made as to what is the sum deductible. It is argued on the principle laid down in Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor, that the tax is not on the gross income, that the non-agricultural income of an estate is the income after deducting the revenue. We do not see why the apportionment was not made. We therefore, direct that the proportionate amount of the revenue paid may be deducted in computing the income from the non-agricultural sources."
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1