Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.48 seconds)The Census Act, 1948
Government of India Act, 1935
Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Kesho Prasad Singh vs Sheo Pargash Ojha on 29 July, 1924
The learned Judges held that land held for the purposes of a grove was not land held for agricultural purposes, and this view was approved of in appeal by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha (1924) 46 All. 831 in which their Lordships stated expressly that they agreed with High Court that land held for the purposes of a grove was not land used for agricultural purposes. In my judgment it has not been established in this case that the income referred to as bankar is derived from agricultural land or from agriculture and, therefore, it cannot be assessed under the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act.
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya ... vs Secretary Of State For India In Council on 30 August, 1920
The facts relating to these various payments of salami are nowhere set out in the case. All that is said is that these payments by way of salami were made on settlement of lands with tenants. Both the Commissioner and the Board appeared to have though that as a matter of law such payments were not capital receipts but revenue receipts and, therefore, formed part of the proprietors income. The case of Birendra Kishore Manikya v. Secretary of State for India (1920) 48 Cal. 766; 1 I.T.C. 67 now overruled on the main question which it decided does support the views of the Commissioner and the Board, but it is to be observed that this Court has not accepted the law as laid down in that case.