Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 26 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Narayana ... on 17 August, 1925
5. There is a 'cursus curiae' of all the High Courts in support of this interpretation with reference to Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act which is in 'pari materia' with Section 26 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act: 'COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX v. RAJA OF PARLAKIMEDI', 49 Mad.
Messrs. Chimanram Motilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 22 September, 1942
17. This is really the crux of their judgment. It would thus be clear that the appellants also agreed that Section 34 was applicable to the case in question and on that hypothesis asked the Judicial Committee to draw an inference in their favour which it refused to do. Their Lordships apparently were not examining there the question with which we are now confronted and it may not be therefore desirable to extend their dictum too far. It was on similar lines that Kania, J. (as he then was) distinguished the above Observations of the Judicial Committee in 'CHIMANRAM MOTILAL v. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) BOMBAY', I.L.R. (1943) Bom. 206: A. I. R. 1943 Bom. 132 at page 137. The matter appears to have been placed beyond any realm of doubt by various other judicial pronouncements both before and after the said decision of the Judicial Committee. It is needless for me to refer to all those cases most of which have been already cited in the Judgment of my learned brother. I agree with him that the 'cursus curiae' of the various High Courts in India is in favour of the interpretation of Section 26 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act adopted by him, which Section is substantially similar to Section 34 of the Income-tax Act considered in those cases. For the reasons aforesaid, I have eventually agreed to the answers proposed as well as to the directions for costs allowed in this reference.
Jot Ram Sher Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, United ... on 11 January, 1934
22; 'AMIR SINGH SHER SINGH v. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX', 1935-3 I. T. R. 171 (Lah.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar, And ... vs Maharaja Of Darbhanga. on 22 September, 1943
11. Upon this survey of the authorities, it is plain that the income from the zarpeshgi lease in the present case is not capital receipt but is income receipt. Learned Government Pleader contended that the receipt was agricultural income. Dr. Sultan Ahmad did not dispute that if the amount in question is not capital receipt it would bear the character of agricultural income. It was indeed pointed out by the Government Pleader that under the terms of the zarpeshgi lease, the assessee was granted possession of the villages in question, that he was given sole right to collect rents from the tenants and to enjoy the profits. The facts are closely parallel to 'COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR & ORISSA v. MAHARA-JADHIRAJ OF DARBHANGA', 14 Pat 623 in which a money-lender lent money on a zarpeshgi lease and usufructuary mortgage of agricultural lands under which he was put in possession with the general powers and obligations of an owner to manage the estate, collect rents, pay the Government revenue and taxes and to exercise all powers in relation to rai-yats that an owner might exercise. There was also a clause in the contract that after deducting from a gross estimated rental the estimated costs of management and 'thika' rent he was to take the balance ('thicka' profits). It was held by the Judicial Committee that the 'thicka' profits were agricultural income and not income from money-lending business.
1