Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.14 seconds)The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
Section 27 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Paramananda Das And Anr. vs Sankar Rath on 21 March, 1950
Jagannadha Das and Narasimham, JJ., took the same view in Paramananda Das v. Sankar Rath, .
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957
14. Sri T. Ananta Babu contends that the view taken in the aforesaid decisions that "agricultural land" includes also land which is not actually used but is capable of being used for agriculture is no longer correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, , as held by a Bench of this Court in . In the case decided by the Supreme Court mentioned above, the main question that arose for consideration was whether the income derived by the respondent therein from sales of trees from his forest which was of spontaneous growth and not grown by the aid of human skill and labour, was "agricultural income" and as such exempt from payment of tax under Section 4 (3) (viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act and it was held that it was not "agricultural income". It is pertinent to note that in this case, the connotation of the expression "agricultural land" did not fall for consideration. In that case their Lordships were mainly concerned with the expression "agricultural income" as defined in Art. 366 (1) of the Constitution and in Section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922. In determining what was "agricultural income", their Lordships had to consider the meanings of the expressions "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose".
Rashiklal Chimanlal Nagri vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat on 10 November, 1964
"Both the learned Judges had in mind the meanings given to the word "agriculture" based on the nature of the products raised on the land. This consideration, however, arises no longer in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in . The general character of a land, if it is to be considered independently of its connection with agriculture, would give little content to the adjective "agricultural" in the expression "agricultural land". If the capacity for being used for agriculture is a criterion, as observed by Bhagwati, J. in Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1965) 56 ITR 608 = (AIR 1965 Guj 259) even building sites lying idle would be "agricultural lands" since it would always be possible to say of them that they are capable of being used for agricultural purposes".
Krishna Rao L. Balekai vs Third Wealth-Tax Officer, City Circle ... on 9 August, 1962
It will be noticed that in the said case the main question was whether forest land in which trees had grown spontaneously would fall within the meaning of "agricultural land." In the case of forest land, before the land could be brought under cultivation operations other than the agricultural operations are necessary for altering the physical character of the land to make it fit for cultivation. It is unnecessary for us to express any opinion as to whether forest land would constitute "agriculture land" or not. But it may be pointed out that the observations made by their Lordships cannot be understood as having laid down that the sole fact that vacant land which is capable of being............used for agriculture, would not fall within the meaning of "agricultural land". If their Lordships intended to lay down any such proposition with great respect, we cannot agree with the same. That their Lordships did not mean to lay down such a proposition, is clear from the later observations "if for instance, an agricultural land, as we have interpreted above is left fallow in a particular year owing to adverse seasonal conditions or to some other special reason, it would not cease to be agricultural land". The question whether vacant land which is capable of being used for agriculture, is "agriculture land" or not, did not arise for consideration in the said case. Further the said observations made on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in , cannot be supported inasmuch as the Supreme Court in that case, did not consider the expression "agricultural land" and was only considering the expressions "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose" and "agricultural income".
Manyam Meenakshamma Rajajmundry vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Andhra ... on 23 July, 1965
When this case came up before a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (The Hon'ble the Chief Justice) and Sambasiva Rao, J., they referred the same to a Full Bench as an important question as to the meaning of the word "agricultural lands" falls for determination, and as there is an apparent conflict between the decision rendered by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Sarojini Devi v. Sri Krishna, AIR 1944 Mad 401 and a decision of another Bench of this Court in Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma v. Commr. of Wealth-tax, .