Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
The General Clauses Act, 1897
The New Piecegoods Bazar Co., ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 26 May, 1950
Section 9 of the Income-tax Act deals with the mode of computation of the income from property. Broadly stated, the tax in respect of such income shall be payable by an assessee "in respect of the bona fide annual value of the property". Certain allowances are indicated in the various sub-clauses of S. 9(1). Sub-clause (iv) further provides that where the property is subject to an annual charge not being a capital charge, the amount of such charge should be deducted. What an annual charge meant in the context was the subject of a difference of opinion among the several High Courts. The question was set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay, 1950-18 ITR 516: (AIR 1950 SC 165). It was decided therein that municipal taxes paid under the Bombay Municipal Act and the urban immoveable property tax paid under the Bombay Finance Act would come within the scope of the expression "and annual charge not being a capital charge" and that the words "annual charge" meant "a charge to secure an annual liability". As a result of this decision, the legislature amended S. 9 of the Income-tax Act and put in an explanation for the purpose of clause (iv) of the relevant sub-section. This explanation lays down that the expression "annual charge" does not include any tax in respect of property or income from property levied by a local authority or a State Government or the Central Government.
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Estate Of Vr. Rm. S. Chockalingam ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 7 May, 1960
Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel is Chockalingam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, 1945-13 ITR 122: (AIR 1945 Mad 314). That was a case where an assessee purported to claim that agricultural income from lands in Burma was excluded from the purview of the Indian Income-tax Act. A Bench of this Court had to determine whether the agricultural income in question came within the scope of S. 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. This provision, as it stood then, defined agricultural income to mean "any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Crown as such". The Bench declined to accept the contention that though officers of the Burma Government are officers of the Crown, they can be regarded as officers of the Crown, within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. Learned counsel argues that equally when the expression "local authority" is used in the third proviso, it must mean a local authority within the Indian territory. We are unable to accept this decision as compelling any such inference. In our opinion this expression must be understood in the context in which it appears, and we have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case, the wording of the section is broad enough to cover such local authority which, in respect of the property in question levied the tax. It would follow that both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were correct in their view.
1