Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Smt. Sheela Devi on 18 March, 1970 cites

Megh Raj vs Allah Rakhia on 5 February, 1947

15. After a careful consideration of the matter, we are inclined to think that, though it is neither proper nor safe to lay down any hard and fast rule in this respect, the tests laid down by their Lordships of the Federal Court in Megh Raj v. Allah Rakkia, and by the Madras High Court in T. Sarojini Devi v. T. Sri Krishna, both of which have been impliedly approved for purposes of defining agricultural land in the course of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, still hold the field and are correct tests. In the case of Megh Raj, the Federal Court was considering the meaning of the expression "agricultural land" in entry No. 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India, Act, 1935. After referring to the narrower as well as the wider sense in which the expression "agricultural land" had been interpreted in various different contexts, their Lordships of the Federal Court observed that no reason had been suggested by the. appellant why "agricultural land" mentioned in entry No. 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule should be limited to what had been described in the case as the narrower meaning of the expression.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

T. Sarojini Devi vs T. Sri Kristna on 4 February, 1944

In the instant case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had, in our opinion, no option but to hold, on the findings of fact recorded by it, that the disputed lands of the assessee were "agricultural lands" within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act, as both the pieces of land not only satisfied the test laid down by the Madras High Court in T. Sarojini Devi's case, which was approved by the Supreme Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case, but also satisfied most of the tests laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

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

In the instant case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had, in our opinion, no option but to hold, on the findings of fact recorded by it, that the disputed lands of the assessee were "agricultural lands" within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act, as both the pieces of land not only satisfied the test laid down by the Madras High Court in T. Sarojini Devi's case, which was approved by the Supreme Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case, but also satisfied most of the tests laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Rashiklal Chimanlal Nagri vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat on 10 November, 1964

10. The next case to which Mr. Awasthy referred is the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, [1965] 56 I.T.R 608, 615-16 (Guj.).. That was a case under the Wealth-tax Act. The learned judges held that whether a land is agricultural land or not cannot depend on the fluctuating or ambulatory intention of the owner of the land, and that the criterion must be something more definite and more objective, something related to the nature or character of the land and not varying with the intention of the owner as to the use to which he wants to put the land at a particular point of time. At the same time, the learned judges of the Gujarat High Court made it clear that they must not be understood to mean that the intention of the user of the land is altogether an irrelevant consideration as it is certainly a factor which would bear on the nature or character of the land, though it does not afford a sole or exclusive criterion for determining whether a land is agricultural one or not. Where the land is actually put to use, there is usually not much difficulty in ascertaining the nature or character of the land, but, observed the Gujarat High Court, the test of actual user may not always furnish a correct answer, for there may be cases where land admittedly non-agricultural, such as a building site, may be used temporarily for agricultural purposes and vice versa. It was in that case that reference was made to some law prevalent in Gujarat under which it was necessary to obtain permission for non-agricultural use of agricultural land and reference was made to no such permission having been taken. The following passage from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court appears to be instructive:
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next