Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Kr. T. N. Singh & Ors. on 22 October, 1975 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh on 22 August, 1961

8. The question now is whether the amount aforesaid or any part thereof is commutable or not. For, if it is so, then the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under section 2(e)(iv) of the Act. The Wealth tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessees claim for exemption solely on the ground that the amount in question was commutable. The Tribunal relying on a letter dated 7th July 1837 by H. M. Elliot, Secretary to the Sardar Board of Revenue to J. Thompson, Secretary to the Governor, wherein it was recommended that the allowance in question should be granted as a pension to Babu Harnarain Singh and his heirs in perpetuity, has held that although the letter dated 19th October, 1837, from J. Thompson to H. M. Elliot by which the matters were finalised, does not mention as to whether the grant was being made only to Babu Harnarain Singh or his heirs perpetuity; the grant was, in fact, to Babu Harnarain Singh and to his successors-in-interest also. This conclusion of the Tribunal finds support from the observations of the Supreme Court to Government of the State of U.P. and others vs. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh, AIR 1963 S.C. 799, wherein the grant has been described as one to the Jagirdar and his descendants. The fact that the payment of the allowance was made to Babu Harnarain Singh and thereafter to his heirs strongly supports this conclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 26 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Income-Tax, U.P vs Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh on 9 April, 1965

In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1965) 57 ITR 29 Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. vs. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh, question had arisen as to whether the amount that was being received by the assessee was an agricultural income. It was held that the source of income being the arrangement arrived at between the assessees ancestors and the Government in 1837, the income was not derived from land used for agricultural purpose and, as such, not exempt. It was also held that the amount being received by the assessee was not a capital receipt or compensation paid by the Government for resumption of the estate of the assessees ancestors. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the claim for exemption made by the assessee by describing the payment as perpetual annuity for the exchange of a capital asset i.e., the erstwhile estate of the predecessors of the assessee. These decisions of the Supreme Court established that the amount paid to the ancestors of the assessee was a fixed amount payable in perpetuity, and not subject to variation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 28 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Delhi And ... vs Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi Of ... on 3 January, 1967

The fact that the letter of 19th October, 1837, granted the payment in perpetuity to Babu Harnarain Singh and his heirs, precluded the Government from commuting the amount into a lump sum, for it did so, the condition that the amount would be payable in perpetuity would stand frustrated. Thus, neither the Government could force Babu Harnarain Singh or his heirs to accept payment in lump sum in lieu of Malikana allowance, nor could Babu Harnarain Singh or his heirs call upon the Government to pay a lump sum amount in lieu thereof. The grant in question was a perpetual hereditary grant and it did not lie within the power of any recipients of the grant at any point of time to efface the interest of the future successors by having it commuted into a lump sum amount. It is not necessary to refer to the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat vs. Dr. E. D. Anklesaria, (1964) 53 ITR 393 and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan vs. Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur (1967) 68 ITR p. 1, as in our view, the facts of those cases were not in pari materia with the present case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat vs E.D. Anklesaria on 26 September, 1963

The fact that the letter of 19th October, 1837, granted the payment in perpetuity to Babu Harnarain Singh and his heirs, precluded the Government from commuting the amount into a lump sum, for it did so, the condition that the amount would be payable in perpetuity would stand frustrated. Thus, neither the Government could force Babu Harnarain Singh or his heirs to accept payment in lump sum in lieu of Malikana allowance, nor could Babu Harnarain Singh or his heirs call upon the Government to pay a lump sum amount in lieu thereof. The grant in question was a perpetual hereditary grant and it did not lie within the power of any recipients of the grant at any point of time to efface the interest of the future successors by having it commuted into a lump sum amount. It is not necessary to refer to the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat vs. Dr. E. D. Anklesaria, (1964) 53 ITR 393 and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan vs. Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur (1967) 68 ITR p. 1, as in our view, the facts of those cases were not in pari materia with the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1