Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sutton & Sons Ltd. on 13 May, 1980 cites

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957

Agriculture, according to us, is cultivation which is signified by the word "cultura", that is, culture and "ager" means land. Thus, culture of land means cultivation of land. If a land is used for that purpose, irrespective of what happens to the resultant of the produce, in our opinion, it would merit to be considered an agricultural land. This view is fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Officef-in-charge, Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133, where at page 136 of the report, the Supreme Court, after referring to the decision in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), observed that the question before the Supreme Court was whether income from forest lands derived from sal and piya sal trees "not grown by human skill and labour" could constitute agricultural income. The test applied there was whether there was some integrated activity which could be described as agricultural operation yielding income. It was contended that a mere wild or spontaneous growth of trees, not involving the employment of any human labour or skill for raising them, could not be agricultural income, yet, when there was a forest, more than 150 years old, which had been carefully nursed and attended to by its owners, the income would be agricultural. It is true that this case was not a direct authority upon what was agricultural land. Nevertheless, according to the Supreme Court, it went a long way in helping them to decide what could be agricultural land. The Supreme Court observed that this must be land which could be said to be either actually used or ordinarily used or meant to be used for agricultural purposes. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, agricultural land must have a connection with an agricultural user or purpose. It was on the nature of the user that the very large number of definitions and authorities discussed by the Supreme Court have direct bearing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan And Ors. on 29 March, 1901

In this connection, our attention was drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court at page 474 of the report, where the Supreme Court had referred to the observations of Bhashyam Ayyangar J. in the case of Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan [1901] ILR 24 Mad 421 at 423, which gave the following dictionary meaning of agriculture as culled out from the Century Dictionary and the Anderson's Dictionary of Law:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Chandravati Atmaram Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 September, 1977

Learned advocate for the revenue, however, drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court did not fully approve of the test laid down by the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma [1967] 63 ITR 534, Our attention was also drawn to the observations of the Division Bench decision of the Gujaran High Court in the case of Smt. Chandravati Almaram Patel v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 302, where the Gujarat High Court reiterated that all the cumulative factors should be taken into consideration. It appears to us from the aforesaid decisions and the tests that the question whether the land in question is agricultural land or not is a question of fact to be determined by the cumulative effect of all the relevant factors. But the basic factor to be taken into consideration is whether the land is such where agricultural operations are carried on or are capable of being carried on. We have noticed what are the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to judge as to what would constitute agricultural operation. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the land in question was used for agricultural purposes because there were agricultural operations, there was cultivation of the land and sowing of seeds. The purpose of this cultivation does not, in view of the definition of capital asset under the 1961 Act, in any way affect the question whether the land in question is agricultural land or not. The user or the potentiality of use is a relevant factor but the purpose for which such nature of activity is carried on is of no relevance. If that is the position, then, in view of the facts found by the Tribunal, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion and the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessec.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1