Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Beverley Estates Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 23 February, 1965
11. The Division Bench also has taken note of the decision in the case of Beverley Estates Ltd v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 302, wherein also the income derived out of sale of trees were treated as capital gains following Karimthuravi's case cited supra. The Division Bench has held that the gain arising to the assessee therein by the sale of standing shade trees grown by him are assessable under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957
8. However, Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned standing counsel for the revenue submitted that all the issues have been covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.372 of 2002 decided on 05.04.2007 (assessee's own case). The appellant cannot have a say or to argue differently in this case. The issue whether the income derived from the sale of shade trees would partake the character of capital gains has already been concluded by judgments of various High Courts and even in the assessee's own case. He also highlighted that the appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the order impugned requires no interference in this appeal.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin on 17 December, 1997
For reaching such a conclusion, the Division Bench has also relied on the decisions in the cases of Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd v. CIT 93 CTR 314, CIT v. Silver Cloud and Plantations, (1998) 231 ITR 671 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Tmt.Soundara Rajs, (2000) 241 ITR 431 and has ultimately held that the income derived from the sale of shade trees cut from the estate cannot be regarded as agricultural income and can only be regarded as income of capital nature and exigible to capital gains tax.
State Of Kerala & Another vs Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd on 12 October, 1987
11. The Division Bench also has taken note of the decision in the case of Beverley Estates Ltd v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 302, wherein also the income derived out of sale of trees were treated as capital gains following Karimthuravi's case cited supra. The Division Bench has held that the gain arising to the assessee therein by the sale of standing shade trees grown by him are assessable under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Kil Kotagiri Tea And Coffee Estates Co. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 January, 1997
In respect of the first question of law, it is contended that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 234 ITR 252, arising out of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, has held that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, (1957) 32 ITR 466 has observed that any income to be regarded as agricultural income, it should be derived by the assessee by tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land. The other operations like weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowth, etc., would not per se be regarded as agricultural operations and in order to invest them with the character of agricultural operation, the subsequent operation of the weeding, digging etc must necessarily be in conjunction with and in continuation of the basic operations, which are the effective cause of the products being raised on the land.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tmt. Soundara Rajas on 5 August, 1997
For reaching such a conclusion, the Division Bench has also relied on the decisions in the cases of Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd v. CIT 93 CTR 314, CIT v. Silver Cloud and Plantations, (1998) 231 ITR 671 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Tmt.Soundara Rajs, (2000) 241 ITR 431 and has ultimately held that the income derived from the sale of shade trees cut from the estate cannot be regarded as agricultural income and can only be regarded as income of capital nature and exigible to capital gains tax.
Income Tax Officer vs Shri I. Seshagiri Rao, Prop. Sri ... on 2 August, 2006
Presumably that might be the reason for the assessee, who through the voice of the same counsel, surrendered before the Tribunal without any uncertain terms that the appeal was covered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Late C.Seshagiri Rao in ITA No.2320/Mds/1996 decided on 23.05.2002. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revenue, the assessee cannot approbate and reprobate the issue in different forms in respect of the same issue. In order to make it clear, we are of the view that it is better to extract that portion of the order of the Tribunal, where the assessee conceded that the issue has been covered by an earlier judgment against the assessee. The extract is under :