Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.63 seconds)
Vikram Deo Varma, Maharaja Of Jeypore vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 21 April, 1955
cites
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax U. P., C. P., ... on 4 September, 1946
About the same time the Nagpur High Court, in Beohar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, summed up the position as follows :
Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb. on 29 September, 1948
The facts proved in Raja Jagadish Chandras case were : parceling out of 14,000 acres into blocks of about 1,000 acres each, the trees on each being sold when they were about 15 years old; the ground was ke pt free from under-growth and jungle and, by removal of roots to prevent damages to the new shoots; the area cut down was closely gua rded by forest guards at least for one year; and final cutting down at nearabout 15 years and removal of older trees. There was admittedly no tilling of the soil nor sowing of seeds, nor watering. None the less, Mookherji, J., said that "The application of human efforts is somewhat different in the present case. But ther e is no doubt that the assessee was carrying on a regular operation in forestry". The growing of new shoots appearing during the rains without any human intervention, and the use of particular blocks at fixed and stated intervals were held tantamount to "tending." Removal of trees of certain description was an operation depending upon technical skill and experience of officers, for the proper utilization of the produce of earth. In these circumstances, there Lordships held that there was no escape from the conclusion that the assessee carried on regular operations in forestry. Utilization of land for operations in forestry is therefore an agricultural purpose and tilling of the land is not a conclusive test of such purpose.
Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy vs Commr. Of Income-Tax, West Bengal on 27 May, 1953
There is also another case of the Calcutta High Court (Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy v. Commissioner of Income-tax). There it was found t hat the forest had been in existence for 150 years and that the tree s standing on sections of it were sold periodically by rotation. The learned Chief Justice observed thus :-
Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury ... vs The State Of Assam on 9 May, 1950
In the first of these cases, Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Chowdhury and Others v. The State of Assam the forests consisted mainly of sal trees and the history of their origin was not available. There was nothing to show that these sal trees were of spontaneous growth. It was proved, however, that the forest trees were protected and fostered in their growth by the application of human skill and labour. These operations consisted of clearing of jungle-creepers and climbers, thinning by removal of less healthy trees from thickly grown areas, removal of diseased trees, burning of leaves, cutting of trees at particular heights, reservation of blocks by turns, and their operation in cyclic order, protection of forests from fire, etc. In these circumstances their Lordships held that elaborate operations in forestry were necessary for the maintenance of the forests and for the growth and regeneration of new types in place of those cut every year. These operations were undertaken with a view to enable the assessee to sell trees from the forests periodically and involved both skill and labour; and the income was held to be agricultural income.
Province Of Bihar vs Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi Deo Of ... on 17 April, 1941
This view was adopted in Maharaja of Kapurthalas case. In that case it was admitted by the general agent of the estate, Shri Hara Chand Das, that the forest was of spontaneous growth and that nothing in the nature of preparing the land for the growth of trees was done. It was accordingly held that if trees grow naturally on land without being fostered by tillage, the rent derived from the sale of such trees could not be said to be "income from land used for agricultural purposes."
Pratap Singh vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 2 May, 1952
16. Learned counsel for the Income-tax Department drew our attention to the case of Pratap Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, a decision of the Allahabad High Court where the more conservative view has been taken. In that case, the Tribunal had not indicated in their statement of the case the manner in which skill and labour were utilised for regeneration and preservation of the trees. Nor had the Tribunal given any finding as to whether the assessee had spent any money on watering, pruning and protecting the trees. Thei r Lordships, therefore, refused to assume that these operations had been carried out and observed :
Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 March, 1932
In Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, the assessee was bound, under a decree, to make a payment to his step-mother. That ca se was not one of a charge created by the Raja for payment of debts which he had voluntarily incurred. If, therefore, a charge is created by the assessee himself for payment of an annuity, as happened in this case, he cannot escape taxation of the income.